ttrpg-map-sketcher VS git-bug

I GM an online TTRPG, and I wanted to replicate the experience of the players drawing the map themselves as they go along. We use Roll20, but didn't find the tools particularly well suited to updating the map in the moment.

So, I had a go at making a little tool that lets you quickly make rough sketches of the map, as well letting you move tokens (for the characters) around. It's not particularly fancy, but it seems to work for us!

https://github.com/mwilliamson/ttrpg-map-sketcher

An app for quickly and collaboratively drawing maps for tabletop RPGs.

I run a tabletop RPG for some friends over the Internet using Roll20. As a player in other (in-person) games, there have been times where we've collaboratively made a map as we've gone along rather than the GM providing one, and I wanted to be able to provide a similar experience for my players. Since we found Roll20 didn't really work for this use case, I'm cobbling together an app that tries to make the experience as fluid as possible. It's only really intended for my group when I'll be on hand to explain how it works and I'll be the only one deploying it, so the docs are somewhat sparse, but in case anyone is interested:

https://github.com/mwilliamson/ttrpg-map-sketcher

I've also been working on a compiler for the most boring programming language in the world: https://github.com/mwilliamson/clunk

I maintain a library with ports to multiple languages (JavaScript, Python, Java). They have very similar structure, which means doing the same thing in pretty much the same way three times each time I make a change.

The idea I wanted to test with my language is: is it possible to extract a common subset that compiles into reasonably idiomatic code for those target languages? The compiled interfaces should be sensible (i.e. use of the code from the target language should be as good as if written in the target language directly), while implementations can be a little less tidy, but ultimately still readable and easily refactorable if the user ever decides to eject from my language and write everything in the target language(s) instead.

I doubt I'll ever use it in anger, and since it's nowhere near ready for use of any kind there aren't really any docs. In the unlikely event someone is interested, the most illuminating thing to look at would be the very beginnings of the reimplementation of the aforementioned library. Since I use snapshot testing with examples, you can see the source code, generated code and result of running the compiled test suite in one file:

Java: https://github.com/mwilliamson/clunk/blob/main/snapshots/%5B...

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).