Luckily we already have a distributed version control system that can take over github: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki

I suppose people can use git too if they ever figure out how to send emails from a dedicated client.

▲

MoreQARespect 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are plenty of alternatives for git hosting. The last thing which needs to be migrated before we get an exodus off this vibe coded monstrosity is reputation (i.e. github stars) which are inherently sticky.

▲

dewey 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think GitHub stars are what makes GitHub sticky. Having a single UI / account and being able to jump between work projects, private projects and random open source projects where I want to open a quick issue or submit a PR is much more sticky.

	▲	mbreese an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The reason why GitHub is sticky was exactly this. It’s easy to fork, make a change, and submit a PR to another project. It’s the same interface for your code vs another person’s. It’s a simple, consistent interface to submit an issue. You can argue that the lack of diversity in infrastructure is bad, and I wouldn’t disagree. I think we should have more projects to explore better ways of working. But, the tradeoff is that when you have a centralized system, like GitHub, you also have less friction. The learning curve is small when everything uses the same tools.

▲

ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Git doesn't even need to be "hosted" anywhere. That's the point of it being distributed. What needs to be hosted somewhere are all the barnacles (like issue tracking, code reviewing, CI, and so on) that have grown out around git, that people and businesses have become dependent on.

▲

thayne 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn't have to be. But without a hosted "source of truth", it's kinda hard to actually distribute it, and have a way to accept pull/merge requests/patches.

▲

jayd16 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

LFS files sorta do need to be hosted. At least, it exists because full clones are untenable for many projects.

▲

seanc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which is why they cleverly moved the central story of a software change from the commit to the PR. Commits migrate automatically with the repo. But migrating PR descriptions and comments takes engineering effort.

▲

kortex 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Rhetorically, why can't folks add the feature of PRs to Git? Git is fundamentally just a graph manipulation engine and data structure. It would just be another object type, in a layer which sits above the normal commit graph. Obviously there is no "just make X" in software, but this feels reasonably achievable, and would have tremendous benefit for the cost.

	▲	pwdisswordfishq an hour ago \| parent [-]
		https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull

▲

hosh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think as we see more AI participation in code, github stars are going to matter less.

▲

zer00eyz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Github stars are a metric of what?

If I build something that satisfies me and say 100 users (who all star me) does that really say anything. Are those 100 stars even "real" any more?

All the old problems of the web are new again, and still remain unsolved.

	▲	hugs 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		github stars are a metric of investability. some investors use stars (and star growth velocity) to determine which projects they invest or don't invest in. (not saying it's good or bad - just saying it's a real thing.)

▲

graemep 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I like Fossil, but there are good reasons to use git too.

There are many git hosting options, including some for self hosting. its a lot easier to switch to a different version control host than to a different version control system.

▲

AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Luckily we already have a distributed version control system that can take over github

Surprised that this wasn't just a link to Git. The biggest benefit of Git over predecessors was that it enabled decentralization. Github re-centralized the common case for the sake of convenience.

▲

jeremyjh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes but on Earth every project needs a canonical main branch. Most also need a way to manage and review changes to that branch that all project members have direct access to.

	▲	Sanzig 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Gitea (and its popular fork, Forgejo) are very lightweight. You can easily stand up an instance on a cheap VPS.
	▲	skydhash 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's on the project to decide which is canonical and export a read only accessible version. Change review only requires a communication medium (the patches are mostly plain text) and that can be done in a lot of way. As for merging those changes, it's an organizational issue.

▲

Xirdus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The biggest benefits of Git over predecessors were branching, 3-way merge, and history rewrites (in particular, rebase and squash). As much as Git fans wanted decentralization to be a major selling point, decentralization has never been a major selling point.

▲

poisonborz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Github and other providers before proved that git itself is just a small part of managing code, there's a lot more needed for a full workflow, and it's meaningful for it all to be tightly coupled.

▲

Arubis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> "Crypto had attracted grifters from the beginning, even though its most respected figures were more interested in changing the world. As Silicon Valley investors piled in after them, they wanted to fund companies that would become essential to the crypto economy, allowing them to make vast amounts of money. Entrepreneur after entrepreneur discovered that the best way to turn a profit in a decentralized economy was to figure out ways to centralize parts of it again." (Henry Farrell, Underground Empire)