> There is no notion of access restriction for now at least as this is something missing from ipfs itself, check out radicle’s faq.
This isn't quite true. We already have an authentication and authorization mechanism on top of ipfs. So for instance, only admins/maintainers (of which there might be multiple ones) can accept patches.
(Being an admin/maintainer is different than being a machine owner - currently there can be only one owner. Currently owner has to be online for any new inputs to be processed, though reading should work if your data is replicated, and we've already built some tooling around making that easy.)
How can anybody compare this to Github than? I want to maintain control over who can do what in my repo. If this solution does not support it than it is not an alternative of Github at all.
It does support it. In fact, it's much finer grained than Github. It's relatively easy to change things so e.g. patches to a certain file can only be submitted by people in a certain group, while other files anyone can change.
The owner still is responsible for accepting patches, etc.
Everyone (that has the hash) can see the repo, see and create patches and issues, but only the owner can accept/merge patches. Not sure about issues.
There is no notion of access restriction for now at least as this is something missing from ipfs itself, check out radicle’s faq.