FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
Posted Feb 25, 2020 21:11 UTC (Tue) by Seirdy (guest, #137326)Parent article: FSF to launch code hosting
It's important to remember that git is already decentralized and federated, and has
built-in support for what GitHub has re-implemented and branded as "pull requests".
Git can already format a patch from your local repository and email it, regardless
of which code forge is being used (if any). **Web interfaces should be optional;**
git itself has everything needed for asynchronous collaboration. Synchronous
collaboration can already be provided through IRC.
[0]: https://lobste.rs/s/f2iya3/fsf_2019_forge_evaluation_libr...
Posted Feb 25, 2020 23:45 UTC (Tue)
by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Feb 26, 2020 6:00 UTC (Wed)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Feb 26, 2020 7:58 UTC (Wed)
by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Feb 26, 2020 10:27 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
And then, what about peoples' workflow? I *still* prefer to work in "offline" mode with the online stuff happening behind my back. Try doing THAT when your internet is down! (Which until recently was pretty common - dunno why).
Why is it that people seem to delight in assuming that OTHER PEOPLE should adopt THEIR OWN way of working/thinking/living? I don't give a monkeys how you live your life - stop telling me how to live mine, thanks.
Cheers,
Posted Feb 26, 2020 21:03 UTC (Wed)
by ejr (subscriber, #51652)
[Link] (1 responses)
Plus there are people with longer-ish train or plane transits. Trains are starting to support wifi, but, um, not always successfully in my experience. Planes charge extra.
And some people just want to unplug, sit, and think about what they're doing.
The "offline" world still exists.
Posted Feb 26, 2020 21:31 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
So email workflow these days is mostly a matter of personal preference. Supporting it would certainly be nice, but I don't think it has any practical advantage.
Posted Feb 26, 2020 17:42 UTC (Wed)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (4 responses)
And options for end-to-end encryption of email are still, frankly, terrible. Yes, I know PGP, GPG, Enigmail, etc. exist. Their UX is totally inadequate compared to the web browser experience of "Is there a padlock in the URL bar? Then you don't have to do anything." More to the point, they require everyone in the conversation to have the necessary tools installed and available. A single person clicking Reply All and failing to remove quoted text can result in a cleartext disclosure of the entire record. As for signatures, realistically, half your recipients are doing this: https://xkcd.com/1181/
Posted Feb 27, 2020 5:19 UTC (Thu)
by wtarreau (subscriber, #51152)
[Link] (3 responses)
It's exactly the opposite. Have you ever tried to use GitHub UI ? It's terribly misdesigned, slow, inefficient, with horrible alignment making you totally inefficient. With e-mail I can chose the e-mail client *I* want, and I'm not forced to follow the UX pattern that $RANDOM_JERK_OF_THE_DAY decided was better for me because it looks fine on their smartphone.
And better, I can script processing of my e-mails without even having to think about it. Running sed, grep, vi is just routine. Try to do that in a web interface, and good luck!
This is why I ask people to continue to send me exclusively patches over e-mail. I can trivially and efficiently adapt them and integrate them. In a web UI you're encouraged to take the crap as it is because fixing minore details suddenly becomes extremely complicated.
Posted Feb 27, 2020 19:21 UTC (Thu)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Feb 28, 2020 10:59 UTC (Fri)
by gdt (subscriber, #6284)
[Link] (1 responses)
Git has support for signed commits. The user experience for commit signing is fine on GNOME or KDE. The horrible GPG user interface is still needed to create the keys -- this means few Git beginner guides configure commit signing.
If you want to use a Secure Attention Key to authorise a hardware-generated signature then be prepared for four pages of dense instructions of GPG open-heart surgery. You can set up some Git* servers to reject unsigned commits, some Git* servers will check the signatures. To date none of the Git* servers nor git clients will reject a signature based upon attestation (so all signed commits are equivalent, meaning the server can't insist only on hardware-signed commits confirmed by a Secure Attention Key). Even so I'd seriously suggest to Linux developers that they look at a hardware device for GPG-signing commits (Yubikey, etc). Then opportunities for unauthorised commits are small, even when the developer is using a compromised laptop.
Posted Feb 28, 2020 18:45 UTC (Fri)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
Posted Feb 26, 2020 12:47 UTC (Wed)
by lobachevsky (subscriber, #121871)
[Link]
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
Wol
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting
FSF to launch code hosting