bar VS git-bug

$ pass git remote add origin https://github.com/foo/bar.git

git clone https://github.com/foo/bar /some/directory. Even better, set up ssh keypair and clone via ssh, so you don't need to type your username and password each time you push. The correct address will be on GitHub, under green Clone button, just change it from https to ssh.

Yes, just change the URL from https://github.com/foo/bar to https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/foo/bar to be dropped in to a code search for that GH repo.

nchecker. Also, https://github.com/foo/bar/releases.atom

This seems very good.

1. This looks like Notion, which is good. Notion succeeded by being pretty.

2. It feels...I don't know the way to say it, but the appropriately level of solid (I don't accidentally drag and drop stuff), fast, and just easy to use. No non-modal mix of commands and typing makes entering information frustrating. It feels like typing into Notepad. It's frustration-free.

3. I would like if the dashboard showed unscheduled tasks (as a collapsible section at the very bottom, below Completed.)

4. I have TODOs of the form "Deploy XYZ" and ideally they would be "Deploy XYZ - https://github.com/foo/bar/pull/1337" -- but this adds a lot of clutter to the task list. If there were a way to add details or attach notes to tasks, that would be helpful. (It would also add clutter, so be careful. Just a "Details" link next to "Schedule" and the tags might work. Make it open a note on the right, perhaps?)

5. The "Schedule" link below each item makes me think I haven't scheduled the item, but I have. It should say "Today" (when I'm looking at today on the dashboard).

6. The importing of calendars scared me as it populated a giant list, including my coworkers calendars that I've subscribed to (but have set to not display), but turned out fine. Only the ones I have set to display in Google Calendar display in Emery by default. The import UX maaaaybe could be better / less aggressive, but it works.

7. The dichotomy between "schedule this for today" and "add this to a specific time on my calendar" still exists, and frustrates me, but the ability to sort the tasks helps.

8. It's good that this is opinionated. Stay focused and reject most feature requests, including mine.

9. You got me to enter my credit card before I even got to play around with it. That's impressive, but you are definitely cutting your top-of-funnel with that requirement. (Maybe it pays off by increasing conversion at the free trial->paid step, or maybe you only want true believers at the beginning, but the payment form would usually have turned me away.)

10. Can I export my data? In seven days, am I going to have to manually copy-and-paste all my notes and outstanding TODOs back into my old system if I decide this isn't for me? This risk also makes me hesitant to go all-in during the trial period. (An export wouldn't fully solve this, since I'd then have a messy JSON file or something to deal with, but I'd feel a little better about it.)

Thank you, I tested this and it looks very promising. It does in fact change the composer.json accordingly, so I can use this command instead of hand-editing the json file. This means that I have commit to my git repo a `path` repository pointing to my dev package, but in my Dockerfile for production build I can run composer config repositories.foo vcs https://github.com/foo/bar to change "foo" on the fly to something else (e.g. git)

// We have to discard the first read of this sensor because of a know bug // in its firmware. Remove the redundant read after this issue has been resolved: // https://github.com/foo/bar/issues/10 temperatureSensor.read(); let temp = temperatureSensor.read();

$ git clone https://github.com/foo/bar.git

The best thing about the Sourcegraph instance hosted on sourcegraph.com is that you can edit the URL in your browser from https://github.com/foo/bar to https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/foo/bar to be dropped down into a Sourcegraph search for that GH repo. I've been using it for a long time because of this convenience.

(Though it would be even better if the two options for case-sensitivity and regex search were enabled by default instead of needing me to toggle them on every time.)

> I think you can get the wiki with plain old 'git' ? I forget ...

This is correct. The wiki for a repo is accessible as a separate repository named with a suffix of “.wiki”.

So if user foo has a repo bar with an associated wiki, and the repo URL is https://github.com/foo/bar then you can clone the repo and the wiki respectively over SSH by:

    git clone [email protected]:foo/bar.git

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).