There are also a repository containing some laws in markdown format on GitHub. They even used PRs for actual changes proposed by the parties in the parliament. Also, the commits have their proper date, so you can `git blame` on the laws and even see which president signed-off that change.
Some time ago, someone from the digital service of Germany reached out and asked about my use case. Maybe there will be an official version of a "Git law" repo someday...
Very cool! I came across your project last year while building https://digebu.de .
I wanted to build an "IDE-inspired" law reader. It has selection highlighting and you can open references within the same window. It scrapes gesetze-im-internet.de daily, processes the XML to JSONS and builds static HTML pages, hosted on Github pages. The entire build process for the 6000+ pages takes 5-10 minutes. It uses up less than <20% of my actions minutes that come with Github pro.
It was a really fun rabbit hole to go down.
What I found most fascinating is that: There doesn't seem to be an official version of the German law. The state just publishes official announcements like "Law X will be changed as follows", "Law X will be removed" or "Law X will be added". So the official version of the German law really is something akin to a git tree. AFAIK, all consolidated versions are created by private entities.
I did a test by picking a law at random, finding the first time it was published and then applying all the changes from subsequent years. Turns out all available versions (gesetze-im-internet, dejure.org, buzer.de) had at least a couple of small mistakes. I found that quite fascinating (and a little scary).
It's also funny how often laws are referenced that don't even exist anymore. The collection of laws really are is as tidy as you would imagine an 80 year old system, where the maintainers change every 5 years, to be.
I'm asking as I don't agree on the underlying assumption a use case was needed. I consider the value of transparency and public information for a democratic society as evident.
German laws might work different, but I'm not really under the impression that software version control is really that compatible with law making.
In source code we replace or modify the parts that doesn't work in place. Many laws does not work like that, they are a labyrinth of add ons. A new law is introduced with wordings like "This replaces the words "small businesses" with "nuclear rockets" in the law on "Workplace safety of fishing vessels of 1992", §12, section 3, line 5.
No amount of version control will ever find these changes.
Most laws in most civil law countries (there are exceptions, but it's the standard for the main laws) are a fixed law on a topic which then gets updated. So the 2025 version of the Family Code in France is everything included, and if you do a diff with the 2024 version, you'll see which parts were removed/updated/replaced by which new parts (it could be a clarifying word, new contents, changed rules, etc.). Reading it end to end (it's a hefty book, but still) gives you a complete representation of all laws regarding families (marriage, divorce, kids, etc etc).
It's mostly the obsolete system of common law where to have an understanding of what is legal and what isn't, you need to have a spiderweb of random acts (random as in, they don't have to be thematic, so the Chicken Tax Act of 2005 can have provisions on solar panels that replace the previous solar panel legislation form the STOP KILLING OUR COMMUNITIES Act of 1785) that build/replace on one another, sometimes going very far back, with associated precedents that clarify them.
I think your understanding is that the Act must be the content. But the Act isn't the content, the Criminal Code, Civil Code etc are the content. The Act itself is more like a patch file, with some surrounding metadata (and its own meta version history as proposed legislation gets marked up throughout the process). It could add a new file, but it could also be an edit. But in neither case is it the effective content, it's a description of changes to said content. (The line does get blurred on the initial commit though, because typically the name of the resulting law is the name of the Act that established it).
So you've called out precisely why version control systems present such a useful analog.
I one time learn that the cluster f of exceptions surprisingly quickly turns into something you [almost] cant replicate in software.
Of course one could also argue that it isn't a problem with poorly designed laws but that our programming languages are ill equipped for it.
Then again, the funniest thing I've seen in law: Where an engineer would make a nice drawing with the size of things neatly organized into available space, a law maker will spray all the numbers and description randomly all over the place as if to prevent anyone from ever building the described.
>German laws might work different, but I'm not really under the impression that software version control is really that compatible with law making.
Hard disagree. It allows you to attach a name to particular portions of the code (and a date), it shows you when the code moves from one status to another (branches), and you could even easily do things like show who voted/signed for any given piece.
What's not really compatible with law making as it is now, where to repeal a law it doesn't remove the offending code, but adds more code that says "now you can ignore that previous one". Those don't even make it into the official text until codification occurs (this is periodic, not continuous).
>In source code we replace or modify the parts that doesn't work in place. Many laws does not work like that, they are a labyrinth of add ons. A new law is introduced with wordings like "This replaces the words "small businesses" with "nuclear rockets" in the law on "Workplace safety of fishing vessels of 1992", §12, section 3, line 5.
Exactly. They've been doing it wrong (artifact of doing everything on paper, I think).
I usually convert to markdown from PDF local laws when I need them as a reference for the functional specification. That way its easier to pinpoint to exact section of the thing.
Its not easy to convert general law to markdown, it involved online converters and manual fixes. Currently experimenting with marker [1] on local LLM hardware and so far it is the best out there.
I maintain a web site where I re-render to HTML a scrapped version of the (consolidated version of) the Official Belgian Journal[0].
One of the nice thing about having an underlying structured representation of those texts is that I can also render them to e.g. Markdown[1].
I've experimented about generating the Markdown files corresponding to multiple versions (archives) of a given text and committing them to the same Git repository to be able to see diffs or blames[2].
I would like to assign the proper dates to each commit, but given there are texts in e.g. 1791, it's not possible.
> They even used PRs for actual changes proposed by the parties in the parliament. Also, the commits have their proper date, so you can `git blame` on the laws and even see which president signed-off that change.
This is something I'm very interested in for a different use case: model legislatures. The infrastructure and tooling for model congresses and parliaments is very limited: largely relegated to wikis and Google Docs. And that's fine, but it becomes a problem long term with tracking and archival.
We had a situation where our model parliament did not own the Google Doc for a particular treaty with another model legislature. It was changed out from under us, which is not ideal. But that brings into question ownership of Google Docs, and what happens if that person withdraws from the game.
Another issue is respecting and maintaining the creativity of those who play. People put a lot of effort into their bills with the fonts, formatting, layout, and imagery they use. It would be a shame to erase all that effort by converting it a bland wall of text a la markdown.
Markdown also has its issues: if the legislature removes an entry of an ordered list, how do you prevent markdown from renumbering the list? And the ways around this involve extending markdown, or using plaintext (eg: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt)
Another solution could be QuillJS (https://quilljs.com/), which serialises into a JSON array of Deltas. However, this would make any kind of git-diff difficult to read. You'd need a custom differ, which is not impossible, but that may be a lot of work and may not be supported on git sites like Github.
Another issue is that, if you're using commits-as-enactments, then that probably means using the commit message (or notes) for the enactment's text. To what extent is that supported? As in, how long can commit messages be before it starts wreaking havoc on git clients? Will my Github tab or GitKraken client crash if I view the commit history? Could the commit message itself contain a serialised QuillJS document? What if that document contained a base64-encoded image?
I don't know if they are doing it, but I always thought that it should be easy for regular citizens to see the historical reasons why a law or regulation exists. Because there is sometimes a good reason why a regulation exists, but nobody knows it.
Laws are usually passed with longer texts that explain why the law was passed. These are consulted by courts if there are issues in interpreting a law.
Nice. I kinda wish they went all the way and modified the commit details to have the actual authoring dates for each amendment/etc. Anyone know how well git plays with pre-epoch timestamps?
I would love to see more governments operate on a Git-first basis, so that each and every decision/contribution can be tracked online for transparency.
For example in USA we would have budget ceiling crisis, and both parties try to ram through a law to bump up the debt ceiling "to prevent government shutdown". It is being sold as a measure to keep government afloat and running, and is usually ran through pre-holiday like Christmas.
But what actually happens, is thousands and thousands of pages of various pork is rammed through with various cutouts and carveouts for special interest groups due to lobbying.
Public needs to know who when and how is adding these lines and how is bipartisan consensus is being achieved in real-time, not post-factum.
> and how is bipartisan consensus is being achieved in real-time
This is a horrible idea in practice because everything that is public and open turns into a purity test.
You need people to be able to negotiate with each other in order for consensus to be established, and negotiations only work if the negotiators give up on something that they want to get something else. The moment you make this public all that you get is people turning negotiations into a way to generate soundbites and scared of doing any actual work because they'll just give ammunition to their opponents.
This is doubly bad in the US with the primary systems which makes legislators even more vulnerable to attacks from their flanks.
Legislators are not elected to be proxies for the voters, that's not how it's supposed to work. They're elected to use their judgement, that's why there usually aren't recall elections or restrictions on how they can vote etc.
As a matter of fact I'm of the opinion politics everywhere would be a lot better if plenaries, committees and hearings were not recorded or televised in the first place. I'm ok with minutes being made available but I'm convinced without being able to clip soundbites or tiktoks out of every meeting legislatures would be a lot more productive. Definitely more so than if we attached a camera crew to everyone in politics for "transparency"
> As a matter of fact I'm of the opinion politics everywhere would be a lot better if plenaries, committees and hearings were not recorded or televised in the first place.
At that point we might as well get rid of the press, as otherwise someone might be able to hold someone actually accountable to their actions and decisions. Taking the argument ad absurdum, might even go back to monarchy so we don't have to deal with informed (or quasi-informed) voters to begin with.
I get where you come from, that the public perception of politics is mostly soundbite-driven is indeed a huge issue, in my opinion probably one of the biggest issues of our century, as it allows absolute incompetence a democratic pathway to power by playing to human basic instincts and emotions.
But as long as we want to cling to democracy, the voters _must_ have a way of knowing who is doing what, who is involved in which decision, and what favors are being traded. How else is a voter supposed to make an informed choice?
EDIT:
To address the soundbite-problem, I think systems that are more oriented towards consensus democracy (proportional elections, chance for referendums etc.) rather than competitive democracies (first past the post, majority takes all) are more stable against it. Election systems should favor choice of opinion rather than choice of persons, if that makes sense. I think especially the US (for context, I'm Swiss) would benefit a lot from such changes; right now it seems all outrage-driven.
> I would love to see more governments operate on a Git-first basis, so that each and every decision/contribution can be tracked online for transparency.
Alas, that sounds like a great idea in principle, but is probably a bad idea in practice.
Speeches in parliament (or on the senate floor, in the US) are already public. And that's a big reason those speeches are useless: they are just used as grandstanding to the general public.
The real work in finding compromises happens behind closed doors. That way you avoid producing sound bytes that can be used against you next election season. Especially from challengers in your own party, who could otherwise accuse you of being insufficiently pure.
> Public needs to know who when and how is adding these lines and how is bipartisan consensus is being achieved in real-time, not post-factum.
This is what the press and various independent groups already do. They have people that pour through the stuff, as well as getting tips and press releases from congressional reps and third party interest groups. It's just that there's only so much they can cover, and most of the public can't be bothered to do more than turn on the evening news.
There's a lot of good, in-depth journalism out there. You just have to look a bit harder for it.
How would using git prevent what you’re talking about? Instead of one congressman proposing a bill with thousands of pages he hasn’t read, he’ll submit a pull request with one commit whose content is thousands of pages he hasn’t read. What difference does it make?
I don't want to be mean or assert without evidence, but, I'm not really sure how to respond: #2 simply doesn't happen, or even close, and it's also not a common partisan interpretation I'm being smug about. It's just flat out wrong, both parties don't try to ram a bill through, the government actually does shut down, and there's no calendar association.
I believe there actually often is a calendar association but only because the US fiscal year starts October 1st, and funding legislation needs to be enacted before then.
Like I get it, but English is fluid and is it really that far to make the assumptive leap from "git" to "github/lab/service", seems pretty clear what they meant (even if it's not completely/technically/um-actually correct because git != github).
Yay it seems I don't have to wear the Dunce hat but also, honestly, I'm not even trying to be pedantic on what counts as "git" here. I'm more annoyed that the contribution calendar is considered inherently "git". I doubt Github can even patent that---it's more a habit-tracker thing.
(Okay there's also `git` in the URL, I noticed, which means whoever made the page had that mental mapping in mind but still...)
I just feel clickbaited that this item is at the top of this forum. I'll stop engaging with this now. Nothing of interest for me here.
to be fair, git != github is an important distinction that many fail to grasp. we had a manager who conflated the two, meetings were peppered with things like "do a github pull", "will he be able to log in to the repository on his new machine", "i can't find any good tutorials on setting up a git wiki", etc.
I remember reading about someone simply adding legal texts to git. This is pretty much useless. I think that people who do this never saw a commercial legal database (or how it is called).
What one usually need, is for example, to have cross-references, i.e. when a law contains phrase like "the certification is issued by a relevant authority", you want to have the "relevant authority" wrapped in a hyperlink pointing to an government order that designates that authority. Also, you typically want to have links to court cases related to some paragraph near it etc. If some change is planned to the law you want to have a note in the text like "this is going to change on September, 1", etc.
Given that many countries have local laws, you might want to be able to filter by a place.
Github might be used for storing raw documents as some weird kind of a database, but it is useless for actually trying to find out the answers to legal questions.
To make an analogy, reading laws on Github is like reading source code without syntax highlighting and navigation.
iirc some european countries are currently exploring the idea of "law as code", i.e. law in a machine-readable format that can be parsed algorithmically. iirc austria already made some progress by converting some of their lawbooks to such a format. (I remember being in a presentation about that topic, and I explicitly asked about some actual laws being converted, and they actually showed some of these laws, but I can not find publicly available sources I could link, except some general corporate statements like this https://wwwdev.unisys.com/our-clients/advancing-public-servi... ). EU seems to work on something similar, e.g. https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/endorse...
I used to revile (can you use this verb this way?) M$ in the 1980s/1990s as well, but at the moment I could think of several tech companies that I like even less. And yes, technically they can still be considered a monopolist because of Windows, but it has lost a lot of its significance...
Perfect, thanks for pointing that out - I was just starting to think it inverted votes, since all major parties except AFD were in favor, which contradicted what the text implied to me at first glance.
I agree. In the example you quoted, it’s entirely unclear what Yes and No even refers to. It doesn’t help that the summary appears to be generated by an LLM.
It exists. The "commits" to the legal code is published in a government gazette: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_gazette The current laws are just the tip of the main branch. In theory you could run a git blame and find out exactly which update inserted which specific words into the code. There is even branches in case of state succession, like the breakup of the USSR.
> The "commits" to the legal code is published in a government gazette ... The current laws are just the tip of the main branch
Unfortunately I think those commits are the laws (depending on the country, of course, speaking for the cases I know). There isn't, except in a few cases, a notion of documents those commits are applied to -the commits are applied to previous commits. It doesn't make a difference functionally, but makes the system incredibly messy, hard to maintain and to navigate.
Readit News
Sadly, it is unmaintained.
https://github.com/bundestag/gesetze
https://github.com/jandinter/gesetze-im-internet
I scrape the official website (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de) once a week. The repository contains the "official" XML files with a formatting that is more focussed on presentation than on the logical structure of the legal acts, unfortunately (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/dtd/1.01/gii-norm.dtd).
Some time ago, someone from the digital service of Germany reached out and asked about my use case. Maybe there will be an official version of a "Git law" repo someday...
I wanted to build an "IDE-inspired" law reader. It has selection highlighting and you can open references within the same window. It scrapes gesetze-im-internet.de daily, processes the XML to JSONS and builds static HTML pages, hosted on Github pages. The entire build process for the 6000+ pages takes 5-10 minutes. It uses up less than <20% of my actions minutes that come with Github pro.
It was a really fun rabbit hole to go down.
What I found most fascinating is that: There doesn't seem to be an official version of the German law. The state just publishes official announcements like "Law X will be changed as follows", "Law X will be removed" or "Law X will be added". So the official version of the German law really is something akin to a git tree. AFAIK, all consolidated versions are created by private entities.
I did a test by picking a law at random, finding the first time it was published and then applying all the changes from subsequent years. Turns out all available versions (gesetze-im-internet, dejure.org, buzer.de) had at least a couple of small mistakes. I found that quite fascinating (and a little scary).
It's also funny how often laws are referenced that don't even exist anymore. The collection of laws really are is as tidy as you would imagine an 80 year old system, where the maintainers change every 5 years, to be.
I'm asking as I don't agree on the underlying assumption a use case was needed. I consider the value of transparency and public information for a democratic society as evident.
In source code we replace or modify the parts that doesn't work in place. Many laws does not work like that, they are a labyrinth of add ons. A new law is introduced with wordings like "This replaces the words "small businesses" with "nuclear rockets" in the law on "Workplace safety of fishing vessels of 1992", §12, section 3, line 5.
No amount of version control will ever find these changes.
I actually think version control is an absolute necessity for laws.
Changes will either add, delete or change an existing law.
There is actually a website where someone has all changes dating back to 2006 and you can display diffs (called Synopsis in Germany) - for example: https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/5041/v322454-2025-03-25.htm
It's mostly the obsolete system of common law where to have an understanding of what is legal and what isn't, you need to have a spiderweb of random acts (random as in, they don't have to be thematic, so the Chicken Tax Act of 2005 can have provisions on solar panels that replace the previous solar panel legislation form the STOP KILLING OUR COMMUNITIES Act of 1785) that build/replace on one another, sometimes going very far back, with associated precedents that clarify them.
So you've called out precisely why version control systems present such a useful analog.
Of course one could also argue that it isn't a problem with poorly designed laws but that our programming languages are ill equipped for it.
Then again, the funniest thing I've seen in law: Where an engineer would make a nice drawing with the size of things neatly organized into available space, a law maker will spray all the numbers and description randomly all over the place as if to prevent anyone from ever building the described.
Hard disagree. It allows you to attach a name to particular portions of the code (and a date), it shows you when the code moves from one status to another (branches), and you could even easily do things like show who voted/signed for any given piece.
What's not really compatible with law making as it is now, where to repeal a law it doesn't remove the offending code, but adds more code that says "now you can ignore that previous one". Those don't even make it into the official text until codification occurs (this is periodic, not continuous).
>In source code we replace or modify the parts that doesn't work in place. Many laws does not work like that, they are a labyrinth of add ons. A new law is introduced with wordings like "This replaces the words "small businesses" with "nuclear rockets" in the law on "Workplace safety of fishing vessels of 1992", §12, section 3, line 5.
Exactly. They've been doing it wrong (artifact of doing everything on paper, I think).
Ja, there must be order.
Its not easy to convert general law to markdown, it involved online converters and manual fixes. Currently experimenting with marker [1] on local LLM hardware and so far it is the best out there.
[1]: https://github.com/VikParuchuri/marker
One of the nice thing about having an underlying structured representation of those texts is that I can also render them to e.g. Markdown[1].
I've experimented about generating the Markdown files corresponding to multiple versions (archives) of a given text and committing them to the same Git repository to be able to see diffs or blames[2].
I would like to assign the proper dates to each commit, but given there are texts in e.g. 1791, it's not possible.
0: https://refli.be/fr/lex 1: https://github.com/hypered/iterata-md 2: https://github.com/hypered/iterata-archive
This is something I'm very interested in for a different use case: model legislatures. The infrastructure and tooling for model congresses and parliaments is very limited: largely relegated to wikis and Google Docs. And that's fine, but it becomes a problem long term with tracking and archival.
We had a situation where our model parliament did not own the Google Doc for a particular treaty with another model legislature. It was changed out from under us, which is not ideal. But that brings into question ownership of Google Docs, and what happens if that person withdraws from the game.
Another issue is respecting and maintaining the creativity of those who play. People put a lot of effort into their bills with the fonts, formatting, layout, and imagery they use. It would be a shame to erase all that effort by converting it a bland wall of text a la markdown.
Markdown also has its issues: if the legislature removes an entry of an ordered list, how do you prevent markdown from renumbering the list? And the ways around this involve extending markdown, or using plaintext (eg: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt)
Another solution could be QuillJS (https://quilljs.com/), which serialises into a JSON array of Deltas. However, this would make any kind of git-diff difficult to read. You'd need a custom differ, which is not impossible, but that may be a lot of work and may not be supported on git sites like Github.
Another issue is that, if you're using commits-as-enactments, then that probably means using the commit message (or notes) for the enactment's text. To what extent is that supported? As in, how long can commit messages be before it starts wreaking havoc on git clients? Will my Github tab or GitKraken client crash if I view the commit history? Could the commit message itself contain a serialised QuillJS document? What if that document contained a base64-encoded image?
I don't know if they are doing it, but I always thought that it should be easy for regular citizens to see the historical reasons why a law or regulation exists. Because there is sometimes a good reason why a regulation exists, but nobody knows it.
Dead Comment
Edit : I see you're focus is on another thing completely. Share it, could be a great topic also.
For example in USA we would have budget ceiling crisis, and both parties try to ram through a law to bump up the debt ceiling "to prevent government shutdown". It is being sold as a measure to keep government afloat and running, and is usually ran through pre-holiday like Christmas.
But what actually happens, is thousands and thousands of pages of various pork is rammed through with various cutouts and carveouts for special interest groups due to lobbying.
Public needs to know who when and how is adding these lines and how is bipartisan consensus is being achieved in real-time, not post-factum.
This is a horrible idea in practice because everything that is public and open turns into a purity test.
You need people to be able to negotiate with each other in order for consensus to be established, and negotiations only work if the negotiators give up on something that they want to get something else. The moment you make this public all that you get is people turning negotiations into a way to generate soundbites and scared of doing any actual work because they'll just give ammunition to their opponents.
This is doubly bad in the US with the primary systems which makes legislators even more vulnerable to attacks from their flanks.
Legislators are not elected to be proxies for the voters, that's not how it's supposed to work. They're elected to use their judgement, that's why there usually aren't recall elections or restrictions on how they can vote etc.
As a matter of fact I'm of the opinion politics everywhere would be a lot better if plenaries, committees and hearings were not recorded or televised in the first place. I'm ok with minutes being made available but I'm convinced without being able to clip soundbites or tiktoks out of every meeting legislatures would be a lot more productive. Definitely more so than if we attached a camera crew to everyone in politics for "transparency"
At that point we might as well get rid of the press, as otherwise someone might be able to hold someone actually accountable to their actions and decisions. Taking the argument ad absurdum, might even go back to monarchy so we don't have to deal with informed (or quasi-informed) voters to begin with.
I get where you come from, that the public perception of politics is mostly soundbite-driven is indeed a huge issue, in my opinion probably one of the biggest issues of our century, as it allows absolute incompetence a democratic pathway to power by playing to human basic instincts and emotions.
But as long as we want to cling to democracy, the voters _must_ have a way of knowing who is doing what, who is involved in which decision, and what favors are being traded. How else is a voter supposed to make an informed choice?
EDIT: To address the soundbite-problem, I think systems that are more oriented towards consensus democracy (proportional elections, chance for referendums etc.) rather than competitive democracies (first past the post, majority takes all) are more stable against it. Election systems should favor choice of opinion rather than choice of persons, if that makes sense. I think especially the US (for context, I'm Swiss) would benefit a lot from such changes; right now it seems all outrage-driven.
Government and officials will fight to the teeth to avoid accountability and transparency because that's where the money and power is.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Alas, that sounds like a great idea in principle, but is probably a bad idea in practice.
Speeches in parliament (or on the senate floor, in the US) are already public. And that's a big reason those speeches are useless: they are just used as grandstanding to the general public.
The real work in finding compromises happens behind closed doors. That way you avoid producing sound bytes that can be used against you next election season. Especially from challengers in your own party, who could otherwise accuse you of being insufficiently pure.
This is what the press and various independent groups already do. They have people that pour through the stuff, as well as getting tips and press releases from congressional reps and third party interest groups. It's just that there's only so much they can cover, and most of the public can't be bothered to do more than turn on the evening news.
There's a lot of good, in-depth journalism out there. You just have to look a bit harder for it.
Like I get it, but English is fluid and is it really that far to make the assumptive leap from "git" to "github/lab/service", seems pretty clear what they meant (even if it's not completely/technically/um-actually correct because git != github).
(Okay there's also `git` in the URL, I noticed, which means whoever made the page had that mental mapping in mind but still...)
I just feel clickbaited that this item is at the top of this forum. I'll stop engaging with this now. Nothing of interest for me here.
What one usually need, is for example, to have cross-references, i.e. when a law contains phrase like "the certification is issued by a relevant authority", you want to have the "relevant authority" wrapped in a hyperlink pointing to an government order that designates that authority. Also, you typically want to have links to court cases related to some paragraph near it etc. If some change is planned to the law you want to have a note in the text like "this is going to change on September, 1", etc.
Given that many countries have local laws, you might want to be able to filter by a place.
Github might be used for storing raw documents as some weird kind of a database, but it is useless for actually trying to find out the answers to legal questions.
To make an analogy, reading laws on Github is like reading source code without syntax highlighting and navigation.
By default, git's diff and merge want lines-of-code to be meaningful and are set up for that.
Github is high quality, software engineering enablement platform
And git is letter management engine
This needs human curation to be useful.
Unfortunately I think those commits are the laws (depending on the country, of course, speaking for the cases I know). There isn't, except in a few cases, a notion of documents those commits are applied to -the commits are applied to previous commits. It doesn't make a difference functionally, but makes the system incredibly messy, hard to maintain and to navigate.
Deleted Comment