roqr VS git-bug

RoQR: https://roqr.app/

It's a privacy-focused dynamic QR code application. Just got my first paying customer this past week, which I'm pretty stoked about!

The costs of running it are very low (~$15 / month), and it's not something I'm planning on ever turning into my main gig, but the fact that someone is willing to pay for an app I built on my own feels really fun

I'm building an open-source[1] alternative to qr-code-generator (Bitly), called RoQR[2]. The goal is to provide advertisers with analytics for the scans of their QR codes while still being as privacy-respecting as possible to the scanners of the codes - sort of like a Plausible.io for QR codes.

[1]: https://github.com/roqr/roqr

[RoQR is open-source](https://github.com/roqr/roqr), licensed under the AGPL.

If you’re interested, I have a [longer post](https://roqr.app/blog/introducing-roqr/) on our blog announcing the launch. Happy to answer any questions and would love to hear any feedback you might have.

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

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...

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 can keep issues within git itself: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug