US Declaration of Independence first and final drafts as GitHub diffs | Hacker News Reader

US Declaration of Independence first and final drafts as GitHub diffs

github.com

177 pointskarmelapple40 comments

Hmm, so this is a case where a Git repository, with all its commit history, is the final product. Would it be feasible to develop this product within a different Git repository? How would one best do that? Is such a repository also available on GitHub?

That's how the Unix History Repository was built, at least (a really cool project that reconstructed a synthetic git commit history for Unix from the initial Bell Labs source onward):

https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-make (a repo with the scripts to build the final repo)

https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo (the final repo -- check out all of the different branches/tags)

You can track a git repo inside another, as long as the "inner repo" is bare (otherwise git will add it as a submodule instead).

OK. How do you edit the inner repository, if it's bare? Do you have to clone it to a different directory, make changes, and then push it back to the original place?

Yeah, I think so.

I'd represent it as a sequence of git commands that turn an empty repository into the final product. Then I'd version control the shell script.

No. The properties added to a project by putting it under version control (versioning, diffs, development workflows, etc.) already exist in a git repo.

To put it another way, what is missing in a git repo that would make you want to put it in another git repo?

I think you're missing the point of the question. The entire history and metadata of this repo are all part of the final product in its current state, not representative of intermediate states of development. Essentially, this is a timeline of events being represented as a git repository. If the timeline were represented as a single text file, it would be easy to version in git. However, since it is already represented as a git repo, versioning it becomes problematic. Suppose you discovered an error in the ordering of events. You would fix the error by rewriting the history of the git repo. But how would you represent the action of you fixing the timeline? You need a second git repo for that.

In that case, amend a commit, push a new branch, add a new tag, and force push a new HEAD.

That sequence of actions is how you would fix the timeline represented by the git repo, but each time you make a fix, the previous version of the timeline is erased[1] by the force push. There is no mechanism to record the history of all the modifications you have made to the timeline. For this, you need a second git repo.

It might help to think of it in terms of time travel and alternate universes. You go back in time and kill Hitler, and now the entire timeline from that point onward is different. But maybe you decide that you need to go back in time and make further changes to history, e.g. preventing the assassination that triggered WW1. Every change you make creates a new universe, and now you need a way to keep track of all the alternate universes that you created, in case one of your changes turns out to make things worse. You need to keep track of the history of each universe, and you also need to keep track of the history of alternate universes that you created by changing history. There's now two levels of history, hence two git repos.

[1] Technically it's not erased until the next garbage collection, but that's beside the point.

Sure, check out git-subtree (different than submodule).

There are a lot of commits in the history of this repo that seem like actual typos on the behalf of the creator of the repo. For example, the line "that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was accidentally removed here[1], and re-added in the next commit here[2]. It seems silly to have a project purporting to be various drafts of the Declaration to contain diffs which are entirely anachronistic/accidental/have nothing to do with the actual drafting process.

It turns out[3] that Jefferson wrote a first draft (of which only a fragment survives), then wrote the "original Rough draft" which is very similar to the document we know. 47 alterations were made before the vote for Independence, and 39 more between then and the official adoption of the document on July 4th.

I'd really like to see a version of this git repository accurately reflecting the fragment, original draft, all 86 revisions (in approximate order and attributed as well we can), and final version published as the Dunlap Broadside, instead of this anachronistic heap.

[1] https://github.com/usgov/forget-the-king/pull/1/commits/f9ff...

[2] https://github.com/usgov/forget-the-king/pull/1/commits/d041...

[3] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara3.html

Hello, original repo contributor here!

> I'd really like to see a version of this git repository accurately reflecting the fragment, original draft, all 86 revisions (in approximate order and attributed as well we can), and final version published as the Dunlap Broadside...

Me too!

I was unaware that we had the information you mentioned. I helped put this together after talking with my teammate about how it would be interesting to show a famous document being revised like we view code revisions.

Looks like some rationale behind the 82 changes is here: http://alexpeak.com/twr/doi/draft/

> It seems silly to have a project purporting to be various drafts of the Declaration to contain diffs which are entirely anachronistic/accidental/have nothing to do with the actual drafting process.

This is primarily for entertainment value. The commit messages are certainly not learned insights into what the founders were thinking. Perhaps I should have made a note somewhere, like at the bottom of the PR description - the silly aspect is there, and a bit intentional, since I am in no way a scholar on this.

Maybe consider this a prototype demonstrating the potential value - if any - of seeing revisions to famous important documents. The exercise of looking at putting together the diffs was certainly educational! I hope seeing the diffs can be a little insightful to someone else.

> the line "that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was accidentally removed here[1], and re-added in the next commit here[2].

Intentional - and intentionally silly. I thought it would be interesting to imagine one of the most well-known phrases in US historical writing could be accidentally gobbled up by a stray press of the delete key, just like an important line of code may get wiped out unintentionally.

If anyone with more knowledge of the 82 changes creates a very serious capture of each change, let me know and I will promote it in this repo!

USA: Far from perfect, but we're trying.

Happy [early] Independence Day fellow Americans.

Is there a way to change the dates on the comments to the date they were recorded? It would be fun to see these as "comment made 240 years ago"

I don't believe it'd be possible to change the comment dates without a mass assignment vulnerability. Not that there'd ever be one of those :P

I was hoping so! I figured maybe that would break the date system, too.

Anyone know how?

Yes, like this. https://github.com/gelstudios/gitfiti

Setting the GIT_AUTHOR_DATE and GIT_COMMITTER_DATE environment variables.

That'll let you change the commit dates, but not dates for the GitHub comments.

You can never view a historical document with modern eyes the same way someone at the time it was written did. I bet we couldn't write/agree on such a document today at all either.

The comment from bertilda-lovejoy just summarizes the first-world problems very well.

That account (bertilda-lovejoy) was made 10 minutes ago, so don't get too bent out of shape over it. Its likely a mens-rights red-pill-er intentionally misrepresenting feminist values by taking them to a tone-deaf extreme in a repo thats obviously not meant to be taken seriously.

The profile picture for that newly created user is a photo of the (in)famous feminist "Anita Sarkeesian". (via Google Reverse Image Search)

Bertilda Lovejoy made a name for himself by writing outrageous YouTube comments. I don't know if this is the same person, but it's not coincidental that they chose that name here.

She has always been a manufactured character, including those YouTube comments.

I'm pretty sure it's one of those Reddit joke YouTube accounts. They don't have a political motivation, they're just trolling.

Actually pronouns is a more serious issue than what the profile pic feminist (Anita S.) actually complains about in real life, such as lack of men butts in videogames[0] (no, I'm not joking)

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujTufg1GvR4

I actually thought that comment was (probably accidentally) great. On one hand it pokes fun at the current feminist discourse without being crass, while at the same time it's actually true: the thinking at the time was quite sexist and these documents are necessarily a product of that, and we shouldn't let admiration blind us to it.

I always thought the masculine pronoun was used when talking about people as a collective since we sometimes refer to ourselves as "mankind". They do that in this document, so we thus use "men", "he" etc to be consistent.

I wouldn't use "she" as a collective noun unless I also used a more neutral "humankind" or something. But really I prefer to use "they".

I suppose the time at which the US constitution was written was much more sexist than it is now, but I always thought it read fairly neutrally.

Oh, I'm not talking about pronouns, but about the underlying ideas, and the disregard for women as independent citizens. For example, the 19th Amendment was passed less than a century ago. And there's Scalia's argument[1] that the 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit discrimination by gender or sexual orientation; we find the implications appalling, but was he wrong?

In any case, it's mostly a matter of having caution when reading these works, since their importance might cloud our judgment.

[1] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256401/does-constitutio...

I was taught to use masculine collective pronouns as well, but 'mankind' is perhaps not the best example. It dates to Old English, when 'man' was a gender-neutral term meaning 'human'.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man&allowed_in_fram...

That's a well known troll account.

Edit: New to GitHub I guess, but that name is well known on other sites.

https://github.com/bertilda-lovejoy?tab=activity

That account appears to have only one comment ever.

Yes, that is "well known" in Internet time.

Same with new web frameworks.

I think the use of that photo of Anita Sarkeesian in troll accounts is typical, hence the confusion.

Well known on YouTube and reddit.

That's just a troll.

Troll is just the name we give to the sarcasm we dislike.

No, that literally is just a troll

https://reddit.com/r/RedditArmie/comments/2g29ft/the_youtube...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com