Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Can we do better than Git for version control?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 309 posts

Re: Ask HN: Can we do better than Git for version control?

#161

Post by cflewis »

Apreche wrote: post #77

A lot of people these days have just been thrown into the fire with Git as the first and only VCS they’ve ever seen. I’m not that old, but I’m old enough to have used RCS, CVS, SVN, then finally Git. I started using Git super early, before GitHub existed. You may not believe me, but Git was the answer to all my prayers. All those previous systems had fundamental architectural flaws that made them a complete nightmare…

This post is a terrible failure of imagination that would make one stop language development as C because it was so much better than Assembly.

If you have no problems with Git, then I’m happy for you. I certainly have problems with Git, eg its inability to handle large repositories meaningfully (enjoy a Chromium checkout!), the arcane CLI commands, the shut-your-eyes-and-hope of moving commits between branches and other sharp edges.

That Git has been as resilient as it has is largely a function of being written by Torvalds and GitHub network effects. It isn’t for lack of better/as good features found in other VCS methodologies.

Re: Ask HN: Can we do better than Git for version control?

#163

Post by brudgers »

To me, "Could there be something better than git?" is not the important question.

What matters is if git is good enough.

Or more specifically, is if git good enough for X when X is something that is actually being done.

I mean, git is good enough for my very minimal needs and the needs of people with much more sophisticated needs than mine (e.g. the Linux team). And since I know more about git than any other VCS (in part because there are better resources for learning git than any other VCS) learning another VCS for the sake of learning another VCS wouldn't help me get anything done.

None of that means git is good enough for your needs, but statistically, it probably is good enough for your needs because statistically, most difficulties with git are related to training and knowledge since the mathematics underpinning git are (to the best of my understanding) sound.

Which also implies (not accidentally) that being better than git requires better resources for learning the new VCS than git has, and that's a very tall order.

Good luck.

Re: Ask HN: Can we do better than Git for version control?

#164

Post by lamontcg »

tester756 wrote: post #101
Apreche wrote: post #77

A lot of people these days have just been thrown into the fire with Git as the first and only VCS they’ve ever seen. I’m not that old, but I’m old enough to have used RCS, CVS, SVN, then finally Git. I started using Git super early, before GitHub existed. You may not believe me, but Git was the answer to all my prayers. All those previous systems had fundamental architectural flaws that made them a complete nightmare…

>I understand that people might want to make it easier, since the UI is complex, but that’s never going to work. If you abstract away the complexity of the UI, you will necessarily abstract away the power. I disagree, really. There is not fundamental reason why you cannot have user-friendly UI for 98% of the cases and some "advanced" for those 2%. Just like GUIs have "advanced" settings, the CLI can have well designe…

The problem is that for 99.99% of the people engaged in the debate over if git is good or not and should be replaced the correct answer for them is "stop fighting it and just learn git" because there's nothing better. They need to stop thinking about how git sucks because that is literally getting in the way of their career goals and is self-sabotage.

And if anyone seriously wants to try to replace git they need to understand how git works first at the level of an advanced expert first anyway. At that point, you can have the discussion about how to make git, with better LFS/monorepo support, with a more pleasant UI/UX, etc.

Re: Ask HN: Can we do better than Git for version control?

#165

Post by penguin_booze »

cflewis wrote: post #161
Apreche wrote: post #77

A lot of people these days have just been thrown into the fire with Git as the first and only VCS they’ve ever seen. I’m not that old, but I’m old enough to have used RCS, CVS, SVN, then finally Git. I started using Git super early, before GitHub existed. You may not believe me, but Git was the answer to all my prayers. All those previous systems had fundamental architectural flaws that made them a complete nightmare…

This post is a terrible failure of imagination that would make one stop language development as C because it was so much better than Assembly. If you have no problems with Git, then I’m happy for you. I certainly have problems with Git, eg its inability to handle large repositories meaningfully (enjoy a Chromium checkout!), the arcane CLI commands, the shut-your-eyes-and-hope of moving commits between branches and ot…

> its inability to handle large repositories meaningfully

Out of curiousity, what other SCM tools can pull this off better?

Re: Ask HN: Can we do better than Git for version control?

#168

Post by sroussey »

cflewis wrote: post #161
Apreche wrote: post #77

A lot of people these days have just been thrown into the fire with Git as the first and only VCS they’ve ever seen. I’m not that old, but I’m old enough to have used RCS, CVS, SVN, then finally Git. I started using Git super early, before GitHub existed. You may not believe me, but Git was the answer to all my prayers. All those previous systems had fundamental architectural flaws that made them a complete nightmare…

This post is a terrible failure of imagination that would make one stop language development as C because it was so much better than Assembly. If you have no problems with Git, then I’m happy for you. I certainly have problems with Git, eg its inability to handle large repositories meaningfully (enjoy a Chromium checkout!), the arcane CLI commands, the shut-your-eyes-and-hope of moving commits between branches and ot…

git still has issues with lots of files. I downloaded the sec Edgar database as files and I thought it would be nice way to store and watch changes.

Nope.

So slow. It does not like millions of files. And all my tooling that does a “quick” git status locked up the terminal, vs code, etc.

Re: Ask HN: Can we do better than Git for version control?

#169

Post by mbfg »

dv35z wrote: post #83

What do you recommend for non-programmers, who would still benefit from version control system. Examples: - Book author using markdown / static site generator to publish a book. Uses visual editors like Typora. - Product designers for open-source hardware. Various design files, SVG etc. I’ve experimented with a “GUI only” git flow - just to see what is possible, so I could introduce the concept to others. I found Git…

i'd probably recommend Mercurial, say a UI like TortoiseHq. It has 90% of the value of git with a much better interface.

Re: Ask HN: Can we do better than Git for version control?

#170

Post by Daeraxa »

eternityforest wrote: post #5

I'm sure we can, the question is, can we make an alternative to GitHub? I wouldn't be surprised if there are already several better ones, but I've never looked, because I already know Git, and my chances of convincing anyone to use a better one seem low, and they rarely seem to have as big of an ecosystem. If it doesn't have multiple clouds providers with pull requests, and at least one of those clouds providers isn'…

Re: GitHub alternatives, I've been looking at this for a while as I'm keen to not have everything centralised and Microsoft are hardly the most trustworthy...

There are some GithHub-alikes, the most obvious is GitLab which you can also host yourself but all (or at least some of) the extras you get for free with GitHub are behind payment walls.

My current favourite is Codeberg, it uses Forgejo underneath (which is a fork of Gitea itself a fork of Gogs - all of which you can self host). Codeberg is run by a non-profit and are very much aligned with my ideals. They are also slowly adding nice features like their Woodpecker CI.

One that is growing in popularity and is a little less "GitHub-y" is SourceHut (which also has Mercurial support).

The main issue is that GitHub has really cornered the market. They give so much out for free that is difficult for others to compete with and it has become the de-facto place to host your project. This can mean that hosting anywhere other than GitHub will limit discoverability and contributions from people if they don't want to make an account or work out how to deal with whatever forge you are using.

However one thing that is coming that may help alleviate some of that is forge federation which will allow you to interact with various forges from your "home" forge - which hopefully prevents the need to make an account to make PRs or raise issues.

Edit: I see your other comment now, what could a better GitHub be that supports a better-than-git VCS. Well there did used to be places to host Darcs projects like the Darcs Hub but I don't know if some of the newers ones like Pijul or Jujutsu have any forge support yet.

Edit2: Oh it seems Pijul has "The Nest" for hosting.

Post reply on HN