Bad idea. You'll be debugging it for decades, and on boarding will be worse. Let git be git and let nostr be nostr. A better idea would be single-sign on via nostr to various git service. And one-click install options.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
The idea is to use the git project's git server implementation with a nostr authentication layer. I think the is consiatant with the 'let git be git and nostr be nostr' philosophy.
The on-boarding should be better but you are right that I'll be be debugging it for decades.
Trying to build 2 nostr clients on different tech stacks simultaneously has meant I haven't been able to make the progress I would have liked quickly enough. Maybe maintaining a third would slow down progress too much.
Was I wrong?
I always assumed that specialty clients should be able to easily outperform Amethyst on the quality of the features related to their specialty. Users would gradually move away from Amethyst as more and more specialty clients move forward. This culminates with a slow death of Amethyst, but towards a more exciting and decentralized future for Nostr. I have accepted this fate since the early days of the super app project.
This assumption was based on the fact that our development team would simply not have the resources to dedicate the same level of attention and support to every single specialty within Amethyst.
It has been one year and I am sad to report that I have been proven wrong over and over again.
For some reason, developing specialty clients is harder than developing the same features inside of Amethyst.
And that is a loss for decentralization.
View quoted note →