gotaskr VS git-bug

Feel free to head over to GitHub and check the wiki for more details and I would be happy to get feedback or improvement ideas for gotaskr.

I created https://github.com/Roemer/gotaskr for that and we are very happy with it for a very complex build system. Give it a try if you want.

May I present my alternative https://github.com/Roemer/gotaskr It is kind of similar to magefile but provides some other features similar to cake build and inbuilt tools useful for devops. And also it is a plain go program so no magic compilation in the background. It replaced basically 100 bash files in our rather complex build/deploy setup. Sometimes a declarative approach is just not enough.

I have used many CI systems on large scale and to be honest, Jenkins is still my favorite. Everything you need is provided and works. You have 100% control over the workflow. With code. All those declarative yaml based ones need sooooo much workarounds to get more complex workflows to run and often you are just stuck with a less optimal solution. Beside the build workflow, we do not write any build logic in the ci engine but use external code runners instead. For .Net I used Cake or Nuke build for example but now my absolute preference for build logic is go. There we use a task runner like gotaskr. This helps having the build logic centralized and usually you can also run different build tasks locally to debug and test them. Also with go, you don‘t need any runtime to run the logic. Just build the task runner once and then you can copy the binary anywhere (eg for parallel build tasks) and just run it. This is optimal to integrate it in Docker base builds so you don‘t need to change the base image at all.

May I present my solution: https://github.com/Roemer/gotaskr Heavily inspired by cake build. It has no compile magic anywhere. Just write your go file and run the tasks in it. Or build it and re-use it in a ci for example.

The current refactoring is in: https://github.com/Roemer/gotaskr/tree/feature/toolsrefactoring

I'm a go youngling that tried to create a task runner (inspired by cake build for .net) in go as an alternative to magefile. What I would like is to get some feedback about how it is implemented and if there are go-principles that are violated and where the code should be improved. So if you want to do some reviewing, feel free to have a look at https://github.com/Roemer/gotaskr

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).