Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by account42 6 hours ago
You can also have an upstream git repo on a local filesystem and add that as a remote.

But when most people talk about a git server that includes collaboration and giving people SSH access just so that they can read from your repo is not reasonable.
5 comments
cbm-vic-20 5 hours ago
Nobody seems to have really embraced the truly distributed model of git, where you can expose a local repository via read-only HTTP, and collaborate by pulling from each others' repositories. No pushes.

This would be unwieldy in a corporate environment and for those who don't really grok git, but for a small cadre of experienced developers, this may be a workable model.

link
WhyNotHugo 5 hours ago
Sourcehut _kind of_ pushes for this model. Folks publish their own repositories, and email patches to others. But you can also just email a patch to the author without a Sourcehut account, because email is descentralised.

The Linux kernel and u-boot also follow similar flows.

Honestly, it's incredibly convenient to send a patch via `git send-email -1`, instead of having to create a for, add a remote, push, and then navigate some web-based wizard.

link
luxcem 5 hours ago
That's how I learned git before GitHub, but it was a pain to configure DNS and port-forwarding when ISP didn't provide static IP.
link
k33n 5 hours ago
Radicle doesn’t get enough credit. They’ve created a really excellent take on modern distributed git.
link
cassianoleal 6 hours ago
I'm nodding along.
link
skydhash 5 hours ago
Git support http as a transport.

Actual collaboration does not require write access on the repo. You need to share your patch to the repo owner via another mechanism (email is very suitable for that, but anything that can share text file is ok). The repo owner handle merging patches.

link
jayd16 5 hours ago
Why isn't it reasonable? Ssh works fine for the big repo providers.

Are you just saying that managing account access at the personal machine level is a lot of work?

link
kgwxd 5 hours ago
As a species, I think we're past the point of thinking headlines are for conveying accurate information. The primary purpose is algorithm manipulation and attention grabbing. Every decent content creator openly admits as much. Direct complaints to the Lords of Engagement. They won't listen, but no one else wants to hear it either.
link