1. 35
  1.  

  2. 12

    And here I was hoping for an implementation of git in D…

    1. 13

      And of course they are not publishing it.

      1. 4

        To be fair: how many people actually need this? And how much benefit is there in making it open sourcable? Seems like it requires quite a bit of infrastructure tie-in.

        1. 9

          Gitlab needs it, they’re using NFS and it’s making it miserably slow to use.

          1. 3

            And that helps GitHub how? :)

            1. 9

              It doesn’t but I am trying to get away from proprietary services like GitHub and I am mega-salty about how very slow Gitlab is.

              1. 2

                Tangent:

                Could you run it on an OS with something like ZFS and then just take snapshots and back them up elsewhere instead of using NFS?

                1. 1

                  It was Gitlab’s decision to use NFS. If it were me, I’d just keep backups of the server and run one very fast server with striped SSDs but I can’t actually get Gitlab to work as a standalone deployment, so…

                  1. 1

                    Ah ok, I thought you were running locally.

                    1. 4

                      No, I’m not silly enough to use NFS.

              2. 4

                The way open-sourcing anything helps: outside users improve your software. This is a textbook case for that: DGit’s users are developers.

                1. 11

                  I find that’s usually an oversold campaign promise. (Yes, we have forgotten that “open source” was a marketing campaign funded by Tim O'Reilly and fronted by Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond, amongst others.) For most projects, outside contributions are rare, niche, burdensome, and difficult to attract in the first place.

                  That’s not to say that freeing your software is not the right thing to do, but I think it’s ethically the right thing to do. If you try to convince github that they should free their code because it’s going to make them get a lot of contributions, you may find your campaign promises fall flat.

                  Instead, it’s about giving up control over your users. You don’t like how slow github is, buddy? Here’s the code, go make it better if you can. And if not, well, here’s the code anyway; we did our part and owe you nothing more. Maybe you can find someone else whom you can pay to do it for you.

                  Of course, github being github, they might think you’re a loony flower child if you try to appeal to their ethics. But ethics are still the right angle, regardless.

                  1. 3

                    For most projects, outside contributions are rare, difficult, burdensome, and difficult to attract in the first place.

                    To add to this, sometimes it’s also counter-beneficial. Some core infrastructure things benefit from being tight to their goal, and outside contributions often add bloat, IME.

                    Also, I’m not sure how much GitHub benefits from giving their users and competitors the ability to move away from it. My guess is, not very much.

                    1. 2

                      Also, I’m not sure how much GitHub benefits from giving their users and competitors the ability to move away from it. My guess is, not very much.

                      Google does it, roughly:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Data_Liberation_Front

                      The usual way to appeal to a soulless corporation’s sense of ethics is to paint it as good PR.

                      1. 2

                        In this case I meant that open sourcing dgit gives users and competitors a chance to build as-good-as-or-better-than services than GitHub.

                        1. 1

                          The usual way to appeal to a soulless corporation’s sense of ethics is to paint it as good PR.

                          And in these cases, Google needs the PR after shutting down beloved services and bungling Android releases, etc, while GitHub is still loved and lauded by everyone.

                        2. 1

                          Some core infrastructure things benefit from being tight to their goal, and outside contributions often add bloat, IME.

                          I’m sure you can rub some OCaml MODULARITY on that problem to make it go away ;)

                  2. 1

                    Could you elaborate on this? I was under the impression that Gitlab was a package you could just download and setup for local use, and the filesystem concerns were up to whoever was administrating the system.

                    1. 1

                      People are getting wires crossed.

                      I use the shared, hosted Gitlab service because it’s obnoxious to try to get Gitlab working on a self-hosted environment.

                      Gitlab.com uses NFS for some infernal reason and it’s extremely slow.

                      Gitlab-self-hosted uses whatever tf you want but there’s no provision for redundancy unless you use something that works at the filesystem level.

                      1. 2

                        gitlab was a pretty simple install for me when I tried. Wants to be on its own server rather than something running a whole bunch of other services already, but from a clean linux base did okay. What sort of problems did you have?

                        1. 1

                          Email deliverability and configuration. Don’t want to use mailgun or whatevers.

              3. 3

                On a related note, Github seems slow as hell today. :(

                1. 2

                  It’s a strange feeling to see stuff like this, because it seems like it would be trivial to implement around darcs. I get that feeling often when dealing with git. Did I just not drink the right koolaid at the right time?

                    1. 1

                      #rank name inst vote old recent no-files (maintainer)

                      22351 dgit 201 24 170 7 0 (Ian Jackson)

                      it really won’t ;-)