devd VS git-bug

Your technique is one I would turn towards as a developer who understands HTML/CSS flow so much better than I do any typesetting tool. I actually use a very similar technique for managing my CV and generating invoices for clients; I have a little "static site" generator I've written that takes JSON, throws it through a templating engine, and spits out HTML files. I then host a server in the output folder and print-to-pdf directly from there. This approach seems quite rare; I don't think enough people appreciate just how flexible CSS is or its support for common print-related tasks.

There are plenty of solutions to that specific problem. Nowadays, I only work on Nuxt/Next/Astro projects that come with hot reload out of the box so I don't have a need for it anymore, but I have used https://github.com/cortesi/devd a lot in the past, with much success.

A no-install solution would be to use the "workspace" feature of Chrome's Dev Tools:

1. Open your .html file in Chrome.

2. Open the Dev Tools.

3. In the "Sources" tab, activate the "Filesystem" sub-tab.

4. Click on "+ Add folder to workspace" and choose the directory containing your .html and .css files.

5. Edit the .css file with autocompletion and live preview.

6. Save your work so that it is synchronized with your filesystem.

In action: https://i.imgur.com/slcSt9X.gif

Try https://github.com/cortesi/devd

This pair of tools do both front-end and back-end live reloading with a small amount of config: https://github.com/cortesi/modd https://github.com/cortesi/devd

In tandem with https://github.com/cortesi/devd I've found it a good setup for web development.

Modd watches file changes and rebuilds, while Devd enables livereload, letting me make changes in my text editor and then see the rendered changes in the browser, side-by-side, in near real-time.

This is for go web development but I'm pretty sure these two tools are language-agnostic.

My favourite is https://github.com/cortesi/devd

I think git-bug[1] is the most popular project of that sort.

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

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.