cookwherever VS git-bug

Cook Wherever: https://cookwherever.com/

Cooking is hard. I want to cook more but I am usually too hungry to focus. I am building a site to help you with all stages of cooking, not just showing you ingredients and directions.

I have also realized the knowledge I have amassed for the “why” of cooking helps me cook without needing recipes mostly. I use ML/NLP to extract entities from ingredients and directions so contextual information can be provided to someone who is curious (ex. “you preheat your oven because …”)

I really like content creators, but following videos while cooking is a no-go for my attention span. I’m working on it, but directions will work as time stamps into a video for a recipe.

[1] https://github.com/cookwherever/cookwherever

TL;DR ive been consolidating my cooking knowledge in an open source recipe site https://github.com/cookwherever/cookwherever

Hey! I am excited to see people developing in this space since this is where my head is also at. Up until two years ago I was eating canned chili and soylent before I was shown the light with The Food Lab and Salt, Fat, Acid and Heat. Ever since I have been trying to share my knowledge on cooking with others with varying levels of success.

What has become clear to me is that there is no one size fits all approach to teaching cooking since it is usually a very cultural experience for most people (as many in the comments have pointed out). That said, SFAH makes the argument that most cuisines are much closer than people think when you consider the functional properties of the ingredients that you are cooking. Pizza is just pasta with yeast *Italian grandmothers slowly turn their heads towards this atrocity*

All of this to say, I believe recipes are critical to jump start the creative process of cooking. When any type of possible failure on the path to completion is experienced (ex. missing ingredient, burnt cookies, etc.) there MUST be some way of recovering or at the very least understanding how that happened.

I have been slowing taking notes on all the cooking knowledge I have come across and have been putting it along side the recipes that inspire me. Forcing learning on someone in the kitchen, who is already probably pretty hungry if cooking is seen as a chore, is not productive. Sharing the joy you get from the art that is cooking is IMPERATIVE for any type of educational resource.

If you are interested in my progress, or want to contribute go check it out! https://github.com/cookwherever/cookwherever

completely unrelated to your post, but just wanted to say thanks for your work on the rebooting of nyt’s ingredient parser. I use it in my project here: https://github.com/cookwherever/cookwherever (site is currently down due to the server being physically moved from our house lol). If you are interested in talking more about how i’m using it I would love to share :)

Unfortunately github appears to be actively breaking the ability to use git-bug on large repositories (like nixpkgs):

https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/issues/749#issuecomme...

True but getting less true by the day:

https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug

https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki

Only not having access to https://todo.sr.ht made me to recognize fully, that I don’t have any access to it. https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug suddenly looks much more interesting.

Neither do the issues support. But there is git-bug [0].

[0]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug

As a sort of spiritual successor to git-appraise, I've been working on git-bug[1] which support issues and will at some point support kanban and code review. There is a few notables improvements:

- CRDT-like reusable data structure [2][3] for true p2p workflow and easily create new entities (code review ...)

- bidirectional bridges to github, gitlab ... to ease the transition or just use git-bug as a complement of those platform

- CLI, terminal UI and web UI, for different taste and integrate into your tooling/workflow

[1]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug

[2]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/blob/master/doc/model...

[3]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/blob/master/entity/da...

> but that is for the development of the platform and network of Gitopia. For the end user the workflows remain almost the same for collaboration.

I have to disagree here. Accidental complexity in a system can have severe downstream impacts on end users, whether that be in the form of poor performance, unreliability, or just slow update cycles. It's not something you can paper over and completely hide from the user.

> Along with this the blockchain layer layer offers immutable, transparent and tamper proof versioning of code

Tamper-proof can be accomplished natively by signing [0]. receive.denyNonFastForwards and receive.denyDeletes[1] can be used to make a git repository immutable. Git commits are also already content-addressable. And transparency is achieved by just having the repo available for people to clone.

> along with the collaboration meta and augments the current collaboration flow

Could this augmentation not be accomplished by storing the collaboration information in the repo under a set of special-purpose branches? Like git-bug[2] or git-issue[3]? Coupled with GPG signatures and you've got your immutability, too!

> Along with this it enables us to provide a novel means to incentivize open-source contributions along with fostering a more decentralized approach for governance (even for projects), every token holder could have a say in the decision making, reducing the risk of undue influence by a single party, hence eliminating centralized control.

This one I'll grant you, but it's by far the least compelling aspect of the project to me. I don't think we're going to solve the centralization of GitHub by centralizing on a new plutocracy, I'd much rather see efforts towards full decentralization. There's nothing inherent to Git that requires that we all use the same set of servers.

[0] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Signing-Your-Work

[1] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Configura...

[2] https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug

[3] https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue

Regarding the issues, there are some projects like git-bug https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug trying to embed these sorts of meta-work into git.

Probably git-bug is closer to what Fossil does: It uses Git as a storage engine, and can coexist with your code in the same physical repository, but the issues don't actually show up as source files. Instead, each issue is a special branch (buried in refs so it won't clutter up git branch) that has zero common ancestry with anything else. So in theory you can poke at it with Git, but really, the Git under the hood is mostly an implementation detail, and as long as you interact with those files through the tool, it guarantees you won't have merge conflicts.

You might be interested by git-bug and https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug/blob/master/doc/model..., which seems to be exactly what you describe. (Disclaimer: author).