Comment by jeremyjh
1 day ago
Issue and PR content are not social artifacts, they belong in the repo or at least its hosting instance. Likes and activity feed are the sort of thing that belongs in the social layer.
1 day ago
Issue and PR content are not social artifacts, they belong in the repo or at least its hosting instance. Likes and activity feed are the sort of thing that belongs in the social layer.
Interesting point, I was thinking more about the latter, but you are right that issues and PRs are the more important piece.
It does look like Tangled currently does those in a weird way, ties to the issue owner rather than repo - but here’s a proposal to fix: https://leaflet.pub/p/did%3Aplc%3Axasnlahkri4ewmbuzly2rlc5/3...
Doing some weird distributed join across all your committer’s PDSs seems a bit weird, and the semantics of cross-referencing issues seems gnarly in that world.
I think I’d be OK to model a PR as a tweet, it’s more owned by the sender. But issues seem like they should be owned by the repo for sure.
Issues and PR content are absolutely social artifacts, as they communicate information to others, whether opened by the repo owner or not. In fact, other people can interact with them, and are supposed to do so, which makes them even more inherently social.
The more important thing about issues & PRs is that they explain why the code is the way that it is. Knowing why the code is the way it is, is almost the entire reason we have a repository to begin with. They belong to the code, not some social graph.
Yes, code is largely about communication as well - with others as well as our future selves. That doesn’t mean it’s a social media experience. There are lots of ways to communicate that aren’t that.