[onion2k]

People should use something that keeps a local copy of their code and just copies it to Github and to other contributors with a sync process to push and pull changes. Some sort of 'distributed source control system' maybe. Then people would only need a 'hub' to connect to people, and it'd be easier to move somewhere else.

[gopalv]

> Some sort of 'distributed source control system' maybe

The day it broke away and became centralized was when we had a PR + mandatory "Required actions" to merge to main.

[ruszki]

That’s only mandatory on the “hub”. I can do that locally anytime.

[bergie]

I'm looking at setting up rngit mirrors of all my repos on our boat NAS. Conceivably it also allows issue tracking and collaboration without centralized infra

https://reticulum.network/manual/git.html#mirroring-reposito...

[fusishch]

What you just described is Fossil. It has an auto-sync feature that makes everything feel distributed.

Just set up a Kubernetes deployment and you’re set.

But as others mention, GitHub’s primary strength is collaboration. If you want decentralized, solve this by creating a decentralized collaboration tool on top of fossil and/or git.

For example, how to do pull requests and code reviews?

[40four]

Why they just described is Git :) pretty sure it was a joke

[marricks]

I like how tech seems to be all about stacking more and more turtles on top of each other:

Gosh, it's hard figuring out what changes Lorne made if only we had a system to merge those changes. Enter git

Gosh it's hard figuring out what packages Rachel had to make this work. Enter rubygems/pip/npm

Gosh it's hard figuring out sync these changes across a network. Enter github

Gosh it's hard figuring out how to get those packages working on my operating system. Enter docker

Gosh centralizing our distributed version control software system onto one website is getting really unreliable. Enter fossil(?????)

If we go any further having one computer per business with a sign up sheep is starting to sound pretty fucking attractive.

[coldpie]

This gets tiresome. Github is a lot more than a host for Git repositories. If you want to suggest that people use something else, you need to suggest a replacement that has the features people use Github for.

[ornornor]

Increasingly less and less so as they “upgrade” their offering and have more and more downtime.

[doctorpangloss]

yeah, #1, it is free private file storage, and #2, it's a download portal for free as in beer software replacing paid offerings. that's what it is for 99.99% of people.

being a host for git repositories has never been its core competency. neither has its groupware offering.

does it even serve OSS well? a very interesting criteria is, "Have mature or adopted end-user-facing OSS recently merged a large PR from an unallied contributor?" The answer is overwhelming no. This is why there is so much innovation in this space.

[danudey]

I think you missed the joke, which is that the parent poster you're replying to is suggesting a 'solution' to the problem which evolved in complexity until he was just describing Github again.