Anthony Carrico <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>> Also, not sure if I saw this on the list: what's the go to Github
>> alternative? I don't wanna support MS, but Github is cool and just
>> works. What are my righteous alternatives that won't upset my precious
> For private stuff I run locally. If I want to push instead of pull I do 'git
> init --bare' on one machine to use as an 'origin'.
Same. On my homebrew NAS¹, `earth`, I have a git user running the git-shell:
[2020-11-02T13:29:52 root@earth:~]# grep git /etc/passwd
With a shallow tree of bare repos in its homedir:
[2020-11-02T17:17:32 root@earth:/data/system/git]# find . -maxdepth 2
And ~git/.ssh/authorized_keys for all the legit users of the repo.
Users (eg. `water`) have a familiar-looking remotes:
[2020-11-02T17:19:05 jsled@water:~]$ git remote -v
origin git@earth:jsled/dotfiles (fetch)
origin git@earth:jsled/dotfiles (push)
> I always wondered if we (as
> a community) should have developed a workflow that keeps issues /inside/ the
> repo, perhaps in a separate branch.
I've seen projects that try to do this, and I'm not sure why it hasn't
really taken off.
I mean, I know why it hasn't, and keeping the issues in a separate
branch loses a lot of the value, especially if you use any reasonable
branched development model, but then keeping up with a maybe-voluminous
stream of "unrelated" issue-maintenance commits is a chore, especially
if you believe in the supremacy of rebase vs. merge workflows, and and
and … :)
But I always figured if I had another hobby project big enough to need
issue-tracking – but not so big that people would expect "proper issue
tracking" – I'd "just" do it inside the repo.