Why replace git? That's exactly the conclusion I came to. So i completely rearchitected ngit and built gitworkshop.dev Let git be git. Let nostr be nostr.
Yes, there is a lot of potential with nip34. Its interesting how similar the ngit / gitworkshop protocol is to nip 34 without any coordination.
We could have create a nostr git remote-helper to proxy request to one of a number of git servers that the maintainers put in their repo event. That way everyone would seamlessly switch to a different server if one got server banned the project.
More importantly, the pressing need is censorship resistant contribution. Today, if a user gets banned from github, like that Bisq contributor recently, it stunts there ability to participate.
If a project gets banned it can be disruptive short term and they have to move to another centralised alternative to repeat the process.
That's not freedom technolgogy.
If collaborative contribution moves to nostr, it would be a minor irritation to switch from GitHub to a different gitserver or a few mirrors.
Yes. Last May I did the ngit prototype which tried to replace git servers entirely through events on relays. I concluded whilst it is possible, it is not very storage or bandwidth efficient. It turns out git does a lot of optimisation in this regard.
When building on a open protocol you need to bring people with you and be open to compromise and opportunities for overlap.
I'm hoping that there will be lots of innovation with different clients and experiences that cater for different needs but it in an interoperable way. I encourage you to write up your spec and share it because the conversations are happening now about the standards. We will all be more open to different ideas now than when a standard is agreed.
This is actually the first I have heard of this. Its a fork of the prototype version I created with a protocol I moved a way from. Does anyone know Randy's npub? I'll reach out and see if he wants to discuss it.
nostr:npub1t89vhkp66hz54kga4n635jwqdc977uc2crnuyddx7maznwfrpupqwra5h9 I can completely understand why you are frustrated. I believe in the model of releasing early and iterating through feedback.
I intended to have released something bare bones much earlier but for (1) shifting ideas about the protocol and mistakes such as (2) premature optimisations and (3) writing code with very good test coverage that likely to completely change.
When nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 posted the nip proposal, it was a trigger for me to push how what I had, pretty much in the state it was in.
Yes it is a bit embarrassing that it is full of bugs and the half-baked 'optimisation' are causing many issues but it was definitely a good thing. It means I can discuss the approach with the community and get feedback. I can shape their ideas and the community can shape mine. Together we will work towards a better solution faster.
I encourage you to get involved in the conversation, explore the different approaches and see what you can incorporate or ideas you can share. https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/997 is a good place to start.
I wish you all the best.
I love having control over which events to sign. For example, do I really want to sign a challenge event for every relay that asks for it?
there has been talk in the development community over a standard for git over nostr this week so hopefully we can converge one soon.
I've been working on a GitHub alternative over nostr.
Isn't it distracting to see words that you know particularly if they are real sentences. Are you proposing using real sentences?
I enjoyed Andrew Yang's 2018 book on UBI called 'The War on Normal People' when I read it a few years ago.
Developer here. If you draft some sensible descriptions, I'll implement them.