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

191–200 of 309 posts

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

#191

Post by aaomidi »

vtbassmatt wrote: post #187
aaomidi wrote: post #98

Yes. IMHO the next VCS model should follow a centralized-first, decentralized optional model. Which would be a flip of the decentralized-first model of git. I also think GitHub is in a unique space to really innovate on git and it’s a shame they’re not. For example, I shouldn’t need to make a fork to make a PR. That’s absurd and the GitHub server should be able to apply ACLs based on the push identity. There’s a coup…

I think there are some serious ergonomic issues with forks as they’re presently implemented. However, I’m curious what you intend from: > the GitHub server should be able to apply ACLs based on the push identity That’s essentially exactly what a GitHub fork _is_ – an ACL’d set of refs you’re allowed to control, separate from upstream’s set of refs. I guess – what would you have us do differently? Disclosure, I work f…

Oh awesome, thank you for asking for clarification!

What really slows me down, and honestly just kinda annoys me is that when I’ve cloned some upstream repository onto my machine and made a bug fix, why do I need to then fork the repository once more and push the commit to my fork first and then go through the theatrics of making a PR?

GitHub the server could, for example, fake my branch on the origin/upstream. It doesn’t need to actually make the branch on the upstream, and can smartly make a volatile fork, and prepare the changes to become a PR.

Basically, since the server knows my identity, and knows if I can or can’t make a branch on the upstream repo, it can handle the boilerplate of making a fork for me.

What I want to see from GitHub is embracing the power of there being an authoritative server between the developer and the repository.

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

#192

Post by janosdebugs »

flohofwoe wrote: post #96
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…

Git keeps the entire history on your local machine, this becomes a problem if your project grows to several hundred GB (not untypical in game dev). Even SVN was much better for working with large repositories, you only needed a big server. Git is quite nice for "source code only projects though".

I have a lot of huge files and use SVN with it. It's dirt cheap to host, next to no memory requirements, and it comes with a web UI to boot because it's built in top of WebDAV. You can literally open a repo in the browser.

The only downside is the per-file versioning, the update needs to be run on the top directory otherwise interesting problems happen.

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

#193

Post by [deleted] »

phyzome wrote: post #190
trevyn wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a difference?

Absolutely. In a move-and-edit situation, git will sometimes infer a rename and sometimes not, based on your local version of git, your settings, and the details of the edit. If inference fails, you may have a harder time resolving merge conflicts, performing cherry-picks, etc.

[deleted]

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

#194

Post by janosdebugs »

0xcoffee wrote: post #48
mike_d wrote: post #16

Subversion was really good. It wasn't perfect, but it was relatively painless. Instead everyone switched to a "distributed" version control system that is such a pain in the ass it is all now hosted by a single company.

I recently started a new job that uses SVN, one thing that really catches me out is that it doesn't automatically add new files. Is there some easy trick I am missing to tell SVN to automatically track everything recursively under a folder?

Are you using the CLI or something like TortoiseSVN? Tortoise has a fairly intuitive UI for adding untracked files when you commit.

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

#195

Post by friend_and_foe »

I think we already have that, Fossil. Unfortunately network effects are a bitch to overcome. But with Fossil you get an elegantly architectured system that includes a ton of forge tools the absence of which have led to centralization of git repositories in places like github. It's simpler, saner, smaller and more capable.

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

#196

Post by sgbeal »

leschak wrote: post #68
omeid2 wrote: post #12

Yes. From the creators of Sqlite, you got Fossil. One of the most amazing things about Fossil is how you can track the history of a file not just backwards, but also forwards, something which is pretty whacky with git. https://www.fossil-scm.org

100% fossil. there has been a few threads.. and always someone points out edge cases that are only to be solved using git.. well i dont think so. you can actually go into the sqlite db and change stuff. i've recently started playing with its server api to direct user feedback from web to fossils ticketing system. it is just mature and feature packed and i honestly hope it will get as much recognition as sqlite someda…

> you can actually go into the sqlite db and change stuff

_Nothing_ history-relevant can be changed via manipulation of the Fossil db. In terms of db records, as opposed to space, the db is about 80-90% a transient cache of data which is generated from the remaining (100% immutable) data. Any changes you make to that transient data will be lost the next time that cache is discarded and rebuilt. A longer explanation can be found at:

https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-is-not-rela...

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

#197

Post by martinvonz »

Daeraxa wrote: post #170
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 f…

Because Jujutsu is Git-compatible, there are lots of supported forges (GitHub, GitLab, etc.).

There's no native forge yet.

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

#198

Post by jacobegold »

Apreche wrote: post #107
tester756 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Do it then. Many have tried. All have failed. Talk is cheap.

Plenty of folks are!

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

#199

Post by foreigner »

IMO Git's central enabling technology was disk space getting so cheap you could afford to have a copy of the entire repository and all it's history locally. I'm not sure what the next iteration of that would be... maybe always-on networking, so you're constantly consuming changes from all collaborators without having to manually pull them? What useful things could we do with that information?

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

#200

Post by mlsu »

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…

All software construction involves essential tasks, the fashioning of the complex conceptual structures that compose the abstract software entity, and accidental tasks, the representation of these abstract entities in programming languages and the mapping of these onto machine languages within space and speed constraints.

Git solves the deeply complex problem of distributed version control. Most complaints about git are actually complaints about the essential complexity of the problem, not the accidental complexity of the tool used to solve it.

Post reply on HN