git-bug VS endoflife.date

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).

> where you can see overlapped timelines when support ended

I tried to generate a visual timeline for a given page (https://github.com/endoflife-date/endoflife.date/pull/2859, has some screenshots), but it was limited to a single page (so you'd only see nokia devices at once for eg).

It turned out that it is too hard to generate clear charts with vague data. We often only know whether is device is supported or not (true/false, see comments about samsung below in this thread), and don't have clear release dates.

I'll get to it someday (PRs welcome), but it might not work for the usecase we want (picking phones) because data on mobiles is very vague.

repairability score -> sounds interesting, will file an issue and see. The hard part is that there's no clear identifiers for devices (SWID/CPE are just not good enough) for us to track this kind of data from elsewhere easily.

Here's the PR where it was added by a user, "Based on a Rails core team member's comment"...

A lot of the communications regarding End of Life for Support is done very effectively here: https://endoflife.date/

https://endoflife.date (not mine)

a little similar to endoflife.date if anyone has ever come across it for Software versions?

We do this at https://endoflife.date API, and it works quite well.

I've created the `db.json` with the [end of life](https://endoflife.date/) api.

Something I've recently worked on is building an SQLite database of all the dependencies my organisation uses, which makes it possible to write our own queries and reports. The tool is all Open Source (https://dmd.tanna.dev) and has a CLI as well as the SQLite data.

Ive used it to look for software that's out of date (via https://endoflife.date), to find vulnerablilities (via https://osv.dev) and get license information (via https://deps.dev)

It's been hugely useful for us understanding use of internal and external dependencies, and I wish I'd built it earlier in my career so I could've had it for other companies I've worked at!

This is neat: https://endoflife.date/

I'm looking for a 3rd party vendor that can do the mindlessly tedious work of maintaining a library of software support dates. Think hundreds of thousands/millions of versions of software in an enterprise with ridiculous tech debt. Something like endoflife.date but much more far encompassing.