the single most important criteria when replacing Github
https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/the_single_most_important_criteria_when_replacing_Github/
Consider all the data that's used to provide the value-added features on top of git. Issue tracking, wikis, notes in commits, lists of forks, pull requests, access controls, hooks, other configuration, etc.
Is that data stored in a git repository?
@joeyh how do you feel about activitypub as an interoperability mechanism instead?
@technomancy like I say in the blog post, it neglects an pportunity.
Unless activitypub gets as much distributed power as git has.
(But, consuming data from a git repository and communicating it over activitypub would be fine.)
@joeyh @technomancy Even if you were to distribute your issues inside a git repo or etc (though, a PR inside a git repo? Do you have PRs for your PRs?) you'll still need a mechanism for notify someone that an update to that repository is available for consideration right? In which case you probably need some sort of messaging layer
@cwebber @technomancy yes, activitypub could be useful for that, but it seems it would be easy to end up with data stored in activitypub messages themselves
(No PR inception needed, use a separate branch for the data with validation hooks, etc)
ActivityPub could maybe be a way for a git server to notify a CI server that something's changed (triggering a CI build, test, deploy, etc). The ActivityPub message could carry the necessary metadata of the change (what ref changed, etc), and possibly the actual change (the commits), to avoid having CI having to pull from the CI server.
Then maybe any number of CI servers could subscribe to the ActivityPub stream (or what it's called?) for a git server.
