5 ms·

Yes, this is how radicle stores this data. ; ) https://app.radicle.xyz/nodes/seed.radicle.xyz/rad:z3trNYnLWS11cJWC6BbxDs5niGo82/tree/0003-storage-layout.md htt

Yes, this is how radicle stores this data. ; ) https://app.radicle.xyz/nodes/seed.radicle.xyz/rad:z3trNYnLWS11cJWC6BbxDs5niGo82/tree/0003-storage-layout.md https://app.radicle.xyz/nodes/seed.radicle.xyz/rad:z3trNYnLW...

gsaslis 3y ago
https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol is probably a better resource (but this guide is still Work In Progress)
- est 3y ago
  > Radicle’s predefined COB types are stored under the refs/cobs hierarchy. These are associated with unique namespaces, such as xyz.radicle.issue and xyz.radicle.patch, to prevent naming collisions. This looks like an interesting approach. I have question, to avoid copy a large .git project, we have partial cloning and cloning depth. If `cobs` grows too large, how can we partially clone it? Like select issues by time range?
  - sebastinez 3y ago
    The COB types are located in the Stored Copy, you would still be able to partial clone the working copy repo without the issues and patches, with your current git commands. There is a better explainer here: https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol#storage-layout https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol#storage-layout
account42 3y ago
> a standard way of storing project management metadata alongside version control data Emphasis mine. Doesn't seem to be it seening as this is yet another home grown issue storage.
- 9dev 3y ago
  Yeah, exactly. Radicle doing it this way, Fossil another - see here why that is a problem: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    And Fossil is an entirely different VCS. What’s the alternative? That at least N projects cooperate and agree on a common design before they do the implementation? (Then maybe someone can complain about design-by-committee.)
    - 9dev 3y ago
      Yes! That's exactly what I would like to see - come together as a working group, create a PR on git itself, and implement standard support for issues, PRs, discussions, projects, votings, project websites, what-have-you. The community will take it from there. The alternative to that would be the git project itself coming up with an implementation. They have reasonable experience working with the Kernel, and the creation of git itself seems to have worked reasonably well -- although I'm not sure I would want to use something Linus considers ergonomic :)
      - account42 3y ago
        I would have like to have seen what kind of issue resolution labels old Linus would have come up with. Resolved: YOU GIT has a nice ring to it.
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        Ok. That could work if you found a group of people who are interested in such an all-in-one package. Gitlab is apparently working on a sort of cross-forge protocol (probably motivated by connecting Gitlab instances) and it seems that some Gitlab employees are working full time on the Git project. So those are candidates. You probably need a group which both have recognition within the project and are active enough to drive such a project forward without it fizzling out. Without such a group you might just send a few emails to mailing list, get shrugs about how that plan “looks good” with little real interest, and then have to discuss this big plan in every future patch series that incrementally builds such a thing into Git itself. Mostly why such code should be incorporated and how it will pay off when it’s all ready. The Git tool itself—and the project by extension—is per now very unopinioated about whole-project solutions like this. The workflow that they themselves use is very loosely coupled and pretty much needs bespoke scripting by individual contributors, which I guess is telling in itself.

gsaslis 3y ago

https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol is probably a better resource (but this guide is still Work In Progress)

est 3y ago
> Radicle’s predefined COB types are stored under the refs/cobs hierarchy. These are associated with unique namespaces, such as xyz.radicle.issue and xyz.radicle.patch, to prevent naming collisions. This looks like an interesting approach. I have question, to avoid copy a large .git project, we have partial cloning and cloning depth. If `cobs` grows too large, how can we partially clone it? Like select issues by time range?
- sebastinez 3y ago
  The COB types are located in the Stored Copy, you would still be able to partial clone the working copy repo without the issues and patches, with your current git commands. There is a better explainer here: https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol#storage-layout https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol#storage-layout

account42 3y ago

> a standard way of storing project management metadata alongside version control data Emphasis mine. Doesn't seem to be it seening as this is yet another home grown issue storage.

9dev 3y ago
Yeah, exactly. Radicle doing it this way, Fossil another - see here why that is a problem: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  And Fossil is an entirely different VCS. What’s the alternative? That at least N projects cooperate and agree on a common design before they do the implementation? (Then maybe someone can complain about design-by-committee.)
  - 9dev 3y ago
    Yes! That's exactly what I would like to see - come together as a working group, create a PR on git itself, and implement standard support for issues, PRs, discussions, projects, votings, project websites, what-have-you. The community will take it from there. The alternative to that would be the git project itself coming up with an implementation. They have reasonable experience working with the Kernel, and the creation of git itself seems to have worked reasonably well -- although I'm not sure I would want to use something Linus considers ergonomic :)
    - account42 3y ago
      I would have like to have seen what kind of issue resolution labels old Linus would have come up with. Resolved: YOU GIT has a nice ring to it.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      Ok. That could work if you found a group of people who are interested in such an all-in-one package. Gitlab is apparently working on a sort of cross-forge protocol (probably motivated by connecting Gitlab instances) and it seems that some Gitlab employees are working full time on the Git project. So those are candidates. You probably need a group which both have recognition within the project and are active enough to drive such a project forward without it fizzling out. Without such a group you might just send a few emails to mailing list, get shrugs about how that plan “looks good” with little real interest, and then have to discuss this big plan in every future patch series that incrementally builds such a thing into Git itself. Mostly why such code should be incorporated and how it will pay off when it’s all ready. The Git tool itself—and the project by extension—is per now very unopinioated about whole-project solutions like this. The workflow that they themselves use is very loosely coupled and pretty much needs bespoke scripting by individual contributors, which I guess is telling in itself.