-
fsv
fsv is a file system visualizer in cyberspace. It lays out files and directories in three dimensions, geometrically representing the file system hierarchy to allow visual overview and analysis.
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
fsv, which is a clone of fsn (the file system navigator seen in the film Jurrasic Park) is still around and useable even though it's not maintained anymore:
https://github.com/mcuelenaere/fsv
Experimenting with distributed issue trackers in git was popular in the early 2010s, there were a whole bunch of different implementations people came up with for git. Most of them died out though, there were typically a few problems - this is what I remember offhand from experimenting with a whole bunch of them:
* Some of them make a mess of some part of git; one of them put its info in separate git branches to ensure changes were always pushed/pulled even without a special push/pull command for the issue tracker.
* At least one of them kept their info in the repo in a dot-prefixed directory and auto added/committed the file as changes were made; this meant a single issue could be in different statuses depending on which branch you were on and there was no overarching view.
* The rest effectively ran in parallel to the git repo, pushing and pulling their data within it but requiring their own commands to do so, so it was totally possible to clone the repo and not get the issues.
* Most of them didn't have a non-repo way to track issues, for project managers and such. One did have a webview that ran from a repo, but it was up to you to figure out how to keep it in sync with the comments/etc devs were putting in their copies of the issue tracker.
Sibling mentions git-bug, a few others:
https://github.com/aaiyer/bugseverywhere (I think this is one of the original ones)
https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue
https://github.com/neithernut/git-dit
https://github.com/google/git-appraise (I think this one is newest and I probably never tried it)
Experimenting with distributed issue trackers in git was popular in the early 2010s, there were a whole bunch of different implementations people came up with for git. Most of them died out though, there were typically a few problems - this is what I remember offhand from experimenting with a whole bunch of them:
* Some of them make a mess of some part of git; one of them put its info in separate git branches to ensure changes were always pushed/pulled even without a special push/pull command for the issue tracker.
* At least one of them kept their info in the repo in a dot-prefixed directory and auto added/committed the file as changes were made; this meant a single issue could be in different statuses depending on which branch you were on and there was no overarching view.
* The rest effectively ran in parallel to the git repo, pushing and pulling their data within it but requiring their own commands to do so, so it was totally possible to clone the repo and not get the issues.
* Most of them didn't have a non-repo way to track issues, for project managers and such. One did have a webview that ran from a repo, but it was up to you to figure out how to keep it in sync with the comments/etc devs were putting in their copies of the issue tracker.
Sibling mentions git-bug, a few others:
https://github.com/aaiyer/bugseverywhere (I think this is one of the original ones)
https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue
https://github.com/neithernut/git-dit
https://github.com/google/git-appraise (I think this one is newest and I probably never tried it)
Experimenting with distributed issue trackers in git was popular in the early 2010s, there were a whole bunch of different implementations people came up with for git. Most of them died out though, there were typically a few problems - this is what I remember offhand from experimenting with a whole bunch of them:
* Some of them make a mess of some part of git; one of them put its info in separate git branches to ensure changes were always pushed/pulled even without a special push/pull command for the issue tracker.
* At least one of them kept their info in the repo in a dot-prefixed directory and auto added/committed the file as changes were made; this meant a single issue could be in different statuses depending on which branch you were on and there was no overarching view.
* The rest effectively ran in parallel to the git repo, pushing and pulling their data within it but requiring their own commands to do so, so it was totally possible to clone the repo and not get the issues.
* Most of them didn't have a non-repo way to track issues, for project managers and such. One did have a webview that ran from a repo, but it was up to you to figure out how to keep it in sync with the comments/etc devs were putting in their copies of the issue tracker.
Sibling mentions git-bug, a few others:
https://github.com/aaiyer/bugseverywhere (I think this is one of the original ones)
https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue
https://github.com/neithernut/git-dit
https://github.com/google/git-appraise (I think this one is newest and I probably never tried it)
Experimenting with distributed issue trackers in git was popular in the early 2010s, there were a whole bunch of different implementations people came up with for git. Most of them died out though, there were typically a few problems - this is what I remember offhand from experimenting with a whole bunch of them:
* Some of them make a mess of some part of git; one of them put its info in separate git branches to ensure changes were always pushed/pulled even without a special push/pull command for the issue tracker.
* At least one of them kept their info in the repo in a dot-prefixed directory and auto added/committed the file as changes were made; this meant a single issue could be in different statuses depending on which branch you were on and there was no overarching view.
* The rest effectively ran in parallel to the git repo, pushing and pulling their data within it but requiring their own commands to do so, so it was totally possible to clone the repo and not get the issues.
* Most of them didn't have a non-repo way to track issues, for project managers and such. One did have a webview that ran from a repo, but it was up to you to figure out how to keep it in sync with the comments/etc devs were putting in their copies of the issue tracker.
Sibling mentions git-bug, a few others:
https://github.com/aaiyer/bugseverywhere (I think this is one of the original ones)
https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue
https://github.com/neithernut/git-dit
https://github.com/google/git-appraise (I think this one is newest and I probably never tried it)