I never quite understood why’d people call for “federated forking” when the truly decentralized model had existed since forever: simply clone the repository to your machine, change what you want, create a patch, and communicate it to maintainers (traditionally Linux kernel used a mailing list for that, but imaginably you could use something in Fediverse, Git doesn’t care). Everybody gets to use their favourite tooling and no one is locked to lowest common denominator GUI for things like reviewing proposed changes.

▲

jrmg 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

It may be too reductive for you, but the answer is “that’s not straightforward and easy”.

▲

theamk 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Everybody gets to use their favourite tooling

well, no. For my work, my favorite tooling is the one that:

- Allows 1-command checkout of proposed change

- Allows two-way discussion, with ability to comment either on specific lines of the patch, or on the overall system, and with ability to mark each comment "resolved" or not.

- Has some sort of dashboards that shows what needs to be done

I can use lowest common denominator - the email messages - but it is really lacking & awkward. Even basic merge request / pull request interface are much nicer.

	▲	strogonoff a day ago \| parent [-]
		Personally, I think discussions should happen organically over any channel; a tool like Github only gives a false impression that everything happens there, but really it usually doesn’t. Regarding dashboard for maintainers, there are tools that do it well, but usually they are dedicated to that; I don’t think using PRs or issues gives a complete exhaustive picture of what needs to be done, and forcing every maintainer to use one lowest common denominator tool like Github is these days doesn’t seem like a good idea. As far as checkout, doing it with an emailed patch is one command, actually.