Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

git/versioning things #21

Closed
jbenet opened this issue Nov 22, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

git/versioning things #21

jbenet opened this issue Nov 22, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@jbenet
Copy link
Member

jbenet commented Nov 22, 2015

i think we should allow putting "Discussions" here that are important, things like the above commit discussion, or the CRDTs discussion

@opn
Copy link

opn commented Dec 8, 2015

I'm going to be looking at and researching a version based backend for Fedwiki on IPFS over the Xmas period. So I'll be looking at using https://github.com/cryptix/git-remote-ipfs and IPNS and creating IPFS links. I've done some initial thinking about how Fedwiki structure would be ported to a global ipfs namespace. It looks surprisingly easy as there are not any url's that really need translating due tot he markup used.

I'd like to get my head better around the usage and ability to author IPFS links - any links for me to read?

@jbenet
Copy link
Member Author

jbenet commented Dec 10, 2015

@opn what do you mean by "around the usage and ability to author IPFS links" ?

@RichardLitt
Copy link
Member

@jbenet I agree about the Commit discussion. I'm not sure about the CRDT discussion, yet, because it doesn't seem to have had many actors and I want to make sure quality is high.

RichardLitt added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 18, 2015
@jbenet
Copy link
Member Author

jbenet commented Dec 19, 2015

That discussion is one of the most high quality discussions in the ipfs
community. But sure, it's more general anyway.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 13:56 Richard Littauer notifications@github.com
wrote:

@jbenet https://github.com/jbenet I agree about the Commit discussion.
I'm not sure about the CRDT discussion, yet, because it doesn't seem to
have had many actors and I want to make sure quality is high.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#21 (comment).

@RichardLitt
Copy link
Member

*Edit: Switched those by accident. I meant the CRDT discussion. It's awesome, and I've added it in a PR. The commit discussion is the one that could use a bit more. :)

@RichardLitt
Copy link
Member

Added discussions!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants