forge VS git-issue

you can clone, browse, modify, fork, make pull requests from Magit without leaving Emacs a single time. checkout https://github.com/magit/forge

However, i'm still unable to create issues or pull requests from within forge, returning error in process filter: Failed to submit post: (error http 404 ((message . "Not Found") (documentation_url . "https://developer.github.com/v3/pulls/#create-a-pull-request"))). Do you know how to solve this as well? I've tried looking around for resources, and so far have only come across issue #273 on magit/forge repo, which was resolved using the correct token permissions. My token was set up with the repo, user, and read:org permissions as per the documentation, but am facing the same issue. I have also run (setq url-debug t) for more verbose debugging, but I'm not seeing any additional help either.

You can also manage via a holistic UI: - Bisection - Log and reflog, stashes - subtrees, submodules - certain third party subcommands like git-absorb, and extend it with your own - interact with issues and pull requests via forge - pretty much all of the hundreds of CLI flags via a modal UI that got generalized and extracted to a lib called transient - well-integrated diff and conflict resolution (which is mostly just smerge) - the rebase/cherry-pick workflows I liked the best, including support for --update-refs - at any time you can always press a key to see the raw commands and output that it's using, which taught me a ton of corner cases - IMO it has a great manual

Following up here with a feature request, in case anyone else reading this is interested: https://github.com/magit/forge/discussions/580

Yes :). Basically all you need to be able to fork and pull request is the Forge package. It's made from the author of Magit: https://github.com/magit/forge Just follow the manual, you basically need to create a token on GitHub and share it with Forge through your authinfo. I tested it recently (cloned, forked, made changes, committed, pushed and pull request to original repo) and I didn't have to open Firefox even once. https://magit.vc/manual/forge/

how is it different from forge?

orgit package, which provides Org link types pointing to Magit buffers (including log and revision buffers). Optionally, magit/forge and orgit-forge packages might be useful too, for noting issues and pull requests.

Not projectile-specific, but see browse-at-remote and forge (of interest are forge-browse-* commands).

There is also https://github.com/magit/forge, which I haven't looked at. Instead, I do all the proprietary github things through their proprietary website.

For magit users, there's https://github.com/magit/forge - ultimately the store of record is still centralized as it's GitHub/GitLab/etc., but it does integrate a local copy of it nicely with your other git operations.

Note that if you just want to provide a issue tracker within Git rather than relying on centralized web services like Github or Gitlab, there is

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

https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue

https://sciit.gitlab.io/sciit/ (this one has a list of alternatives here https://sciit.gitlab.io/sciit/#other-distributed-issue-track...)

Overall it's very disappointing that Github didn't decide to embed issue tracking (and also PR discussions) inside the repository (in another branch perhaps). Issue discussion is part of documentation IMO, and not distributing it alongside the repository causes lock-in

> 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

A quick search for 'issue tracker stored in git repository' brings up this Stackoverflow post, which points to git-bug and git-issue. Those look closer to what you're asking for, thought I haven't used them.

You're overstating the risks a bit and it's not great to posit implausible motives and means for bad outcomes... Like, Fossil devs could "turn evil", and ship an update that destroys your museum and any copies it can find. Github could "turn evil" without notice, and permanently nuke all of someone or some org's repos for no good reason and yes, that'd catch a lot of people with their pants down. It's better to first focus on outcomes, not means. Of course anyone actually concerned about losing their github issue data (or having their museums corrupted) should at least be making backups. (And it's not exactly an implausible outcome on its own, you can think of a variety of means that achieve it and discover one may be rather more likely for your situation, like if I was a Russian in Russia right now I'd have already made arrangements in case GH changes their mind or is legally forced to drop the ban hammer.)

The desire to move off github (and therefore any additional services besides hosting you were using, which issues are just one -- new ones keep getting added to try and cement your dependence) is something more worthwhile of thought than the idea of github turning evil. Fortunately that desire is an actual thing that's very common, or at least the desire to not be wholly dependent, and is why many people don't even use github issues to begin with even if they use github itself for hosting (or some other non-issues features). So there's not a big problem, and even if you start with using github issues, there are various migration tools to move github issues out to [alternative]. (And of course github issues have their own merits, people frequently want to switch to them! So similar migration tools exist to move from [alternative] to github issues, I wrote one for Jira years ago.)

It is brilliant to integrate things with the decentralized source control itself, you get free backups and deciding to migrate to something different in the future is easy, I think it's an overlooked approach for a lot of people. (It seems less overlooked when it comes to documentation in various forms like developer-focused .md files, or broader full static html websites which github can conveniently host for you.) Fossil is well-worth investigating for this free integration to see if it meets one's needs. But of course nothing stops you from doing it with git yourself in various ways. For personal projects, I'm pretty satisfied with being as minimal as having an issues.md file and moving things to an issues-closed.md file when I close one. I've also used the git-issue extension (https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue -- see also its bottom section of Related Work).

But despite its brilliance it's not always the right approach. It's very easy and reasonable to want more than what is realistic for something deeply integrated with the source code itself to provide, if only for inherent conflicts of desire, let alone any question of manpower. There are very good reasons to have entirely separate (and even multiple partially overlapping/integrating/cross-referencing) systems for source code management, issue tracking, forums (internal, external, partner), wikis, public websites, docs (various audiences, public or not, team-level spikes or plannings or retrospectives)... One aspect of Fossil I found weak was its user capabilities (https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/caps/ -- no custom user categories alone is a deal breaker for so many things) but flaws in the execution of a fully integrated thing isn't really my point, my point here is just that full integration despite its overlooked benefits and brilliance when applied to certain things is still not necessarily the right choice for someone.

I think he meant just the network effects of a social platform. Github has more people in them so there are more people interacting with repositories hosted on Github.

I wish that somehow people carried identity across Github / Gitlab / Gitea / other services. Like, a federated issue tracker. Or otherwise that the issues themselves were easily movable between platforms, with no lock-in. But the incumbent platforms rarely want something like this.

An alternative is to eschew platform issues entirely, and use decentralized issue comments hosted as Git repositories, like https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue or https://github.com/neithernut/git-dit or https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug - I think that Gitlab should offer integration with one of them. I mean: both allowing to export issues and PRs into a Git branch, and allowing people to comment on issues and PRs by pushing to a Git branch.

git-bug, the one mentioned in the article here, has some documentation on its README of how well its importer/exporter tools support Github, Gitlab, Jira, and Launchpad: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug

Most of the other such tools I've seen barely have the resources to import/export a single such API. git-issue only has Github import it looks like. https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue

There's perceval which is designed to be a generic archival tool and supports lots of APIs, but only dumps them to source-specific formats and would still need a lot of work if you tried to use issues from different APIs together: https://github.com/chaoss/grimoirelab-perceval