No, they do not need ordering of time, they need the precise ordering their developers chose for them to make sense:

Code is a well-chosen piece of logic to make sense as a whole. You can't just arbitrarily take to pieces of code and mash them together just because two random developers on the planet happened to write them one after the other in a sequential fashion of time.

E.g if you ask a classroom "What's 1 + 1 ?" then someone might say "3" right after you asked but before someone else says "2", but that does not make "3" right.

Proper order of commits is established by a MUCH more simple mechanism in fact: A git commit includes the hash of the previous commit in the history.

So the plain aspect of "storing some bytes" is needed, not a blockchain :) As someone else said, Git provides just that.

FWIW, censorship-resistant networks such as the aforementioned Freenet can and are used to publish Git repositories in a robust fashion. But no blockchain magic is required here either :)

Okay, point taken. I guess with blockchain though it might "moon" and you might make a few bucks off the "whales" who "hodl" or whatever. LOL.

I think you are describing git.

git itself doesn't support a decentralized push as far as I know, or rather that decentralized hosting infrastructure hasn't been built to seamlessly work with git.

Yes it does, you can either push to multiple remotes individually, or setup multiple pushurls for a single remote.

I'm a blockchain skeptic with the best of them, but this does not solve the problem GP is describing. Yes, git supports multiple remotes, but there is no durable, decentralized hosting infrastructure for arbitrary repos that I am familiar with.

Unless I misunderstand git-ssb does this.