1. Businesses need a "halp everything is on fire" button that costs them $1000 a second but will fix EVERY issue, (virtually) guaranteed by SLA. Ultimately that is what these orgs provide; the hosting is kind of almost secondary to that.

2. Actually building real-world implementations of "Issues, pull requests, comments, milestones, wiki, etc..." requires top-tier engineer[ing] time and energy to build and maintain. The current Git-on-steroids-aaS approach provides a very successful way to fund that undeniable cost.

I think git-the-tool (i.e. the CLI tool) makes sense to be decentralized as it's at the core. If that tool were built around the idea of a central repository (like SVN), then you cannot escape that centralization (without using what are effectively hacks).

I don't think it is wrong to then choose to have a centralized workflow on top of it. There are tradeoffs for either one, so choose what works best for your team.

For example, I couldn't imagine trying to onboard new client employees to a project without having some sort of centralized single-point-of-truth repository. Getting them to grok GitHub (and friends) is hard enough, sometimes.

> We need issues, pull requests, comments, milestones, wiki, etc... all to be decentralized. No reason this stuff cannot be modeled using existing Git objects.

https://www.fossil-scm.org/ pretty much does this.

What software aside from Git Appraise (decentralized code reviews) and Git Dit (decentralized issue tracking - alpha quality) do you know of that could be used to move more of what is kept in GitLab/GitHub/BitBucket databases into Git objects and Git tree in order to make Git decentralized again?

Sounds like you might like Fossil. [0]

I don't see git reaching beyond what it does right now, but a few others do, though they all involve a learning curve.

[0] https://www.fossil-scm.org

You could always use all three. That way, if one goes down, there are still two others ready to take its place.

> No reason this stuff cannot be modeled using existing Git objects.

That's the easy part.

The hard part is discovery and keeping stuff like teams and moderation when you decentralize it. Advancements in Blockchain-tech, IPFS and similar will make this viable soonish-ly, but I think we are not quite there yet from a technological standpoint.

We have Bitbucket on our own servers, and we're moving it back to either Atlassian's hosting or to Github. The reason being that we spend far too much time per month hand holding the server when it goes mental and takes all of the RAM and then decides not to server any pages. And it's not for a lack of resources on the server either, 16Gb RAM and 4 core virtual machine, running Linux. So we have more downtime than either Github and Bitbucket combined.

What about when your server and stuff goes down? Or has a bug or issue that causes downtime or similar issues? Your servers could have better uptime than Bitbucket, but maybe not.

not that your own servers are up 100% all the time. But the reserve in that case you could be smiling at the sysadmin guy while he scrambles for a fix, he is just happy not being at fault and having to fix it ;-)

Its holiday today in Ukraine. Yet I am at work... Trying to push some code...

Will be interesting to hear about what happened/went wrong...

Git isn't centralized so there is no need to "move" the code. You can use Bitbucket, GitLab and GitHub all at the same time -- just add multiple remotes, I do this as a part of my normal setup. You can even pull directly between developer machines without the need for any centralized repository. The tricky part is all the tooling around the code (issues, wikis, CI, etc.), but no matter which provider you use for it, they will have downtime.

We moved over to GitLab a couple of weeks ago. We're small, so the calculus is a lot different for us. The migration basically consisted of clicking the import button and making sure everybody's remotes were changed over. We switched because we got tired of Atlassian trying to sell us all of their services all the time. The systems that make a big organization run more smoothly are a drag on a small team, and the more we saw of Atlassian's offerings the less we wanted them.

GitLab is way better than Bitbucket IMO but also has way too much downtime.

I'll up the ante, there is a hurricane in Ireland.

And you started a lousy off-topic thread where you and others are competing to complain about downvoting and the weather.

Yikes. What happened to the HDMI port, out of curiosity?

And I presume macOS? If Linux, X11 can do some interesting hacks with scaling and panning. (`xrandr --output ____ --scale` and `xrandr --output ____ --panning`)

Downvote? Even more miserable.

This is why it is important to keep backups of backups ^.^

EDIT: I upvoted you twice, HN just loves to downvote anything ;)

Wow, that was FAST. It's back for me too!

I can't access bitbucket.org, so...

Edit: / works, repos don't

    git clone https://username@bitbucket.org/organization/repo.git