Replies: 6 comments
-
That's part of the "master plan". git-bug is design to be easy to pick-up for them. However it's probably way too early for such a push. git-bug would need to have a more stable core and data model, and attract actual users. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
to attract stable users whats the MVP then ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Actually there is different groups of users and thus different levels of MVP, each being a super-set of the previous. Here is how I see them and what is required to enable them:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Out of curiosity, is there a substantial difference between git-bug's internal storage method and NoteDB https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/note-db.html ? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
From what I gather from this, it's generally the same idea with some differences. The slides are a bit light in details so it's more an educated guess. Both git-bug and NoteDb store data in a (linear for git-but, not sure for NoteDb) chain of commit accessible through a ref, don't pollute the normal code workflow and rely on git for storing/transport of the data. However, NoteDb seems to store data as key/value pairs in commit message. git-bug goes further than that and store arbitrary data in git Blob and Tree, and tie them in a chain of commits. This gives the sames guarantees but allow for a more flexible format. As an example, git-bug can store files for the embedded media in comments and have them managed by git as well. This data model also helps to implement the conflict-free merge. I don't think that Gerrit needs to have that flexibility or merging data, so I'd say it's good enough for them. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Is there any ongoing work to push into github/gitlab/gogs/etc support for handling issues created git-bug ?
It would be awesome.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions