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

Show HN: Oak – Git alternative designed for agents

oak.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–216 of 216 posts

Re: Show HN: Oak – Git alternative designed for agents

#211

Post by cruffle_duffle »

yencabulator wrote: post #208
cruffle_duffle wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really wild watching LLMs construct those calls. They batch so many different checks and stuff into a single tool call, delimit them with markers, etc. The crazy thing to me is that this kind of “composition of small tools to create something bigger” is the biggest vindication of the Unix philosophy I can think of. I have to wonder how much of that behavior was trained into the model and how much it is the secre…

Totally breaks the permission model in Claude Code.

To be fair Claude is plenty capable of climbing out of its sandbox. If it has shell access, it will find a way. And honestly, it’s whitelist/blacklist permission model is broken and inappropriate for it to begin with.

Re: Show HN: Oak – Git alternative designed for agents

#212

Post by kccqzy »

zdgeier wrote: post #158
kccqzy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the goal is just to make it work like google3, then hg and jj and sapling can all already achieve this. There’s no need for a new contender here. The differentiation must come from something else. But of course at Google the file system part (CitC) is a layer beneath the version control system and is shared across different vcs tools.

I do think hosting is an important part of the VCS story. I agree that hg and jj and sapling are capable of being front ends to a google3 like backend GitHub like thing to support it (Google has this internally for jj). Of course some people are working on hosting solutions for these but it feels wrong to me that hosting platforms and their underlying VCS are not made by the same team. IMO people like google3 so much…

Well even at Google the hosting solutions and the VCS are not made by the same team. I lack imagination in thinking how being made by the same team can improve things, but that’s on me. Good luck!

Re: Show HN: Oak – Git alternative designed for agents

#213

Post by mohsen1 »

zdgeier wrote: post #140
mohsen1 wrote: post #82

The lazy mount is very interesting. This is similar to how google3 works at Google that I have not seen any similar implementation in open source so far. Git sparse checkout is helpful but checking files out as they are needed is much more flexible and intuitive. Microsoft VFS for Git / GVFS is the closest that I can think of. There is room for this lazy mount idea to be built on top of Git

I do wonder how far you can make git work like google3. Partially why I'm making Oak is because I think it might be hard to impossible to implement the necessary features for monorepos to work correctly in Git. I don't doubt that it can be done, I do wonder how it will feel though.

I took a stab at this here https://github.com/mohsen1/git-lazy-mount

It seems to be feasible and useful. I'm still ironing out some details but I thought I share early

Re: Show HN: Oak – Git alternative designed for agents

#214

Post by GroksBarnacles »

gitpusher wrote: post #84
GroksBarnacles wrote: post #66

I wish we as a society would stop using random words for products. "Slacked about Oak, but they need in Fizzle. The deck's in Slate, the assets are in Vault, the timeline's in Pulse, the copy's in Quill, the build's in Forge, and the launch party's already in Ember."

What alternative would you suggest? "Sent a message in our enterprise chat application about the version control system that our engineering team sometimes uses (no, not that one, the other one) but they need it in the project management app that our Design team uses (good luck requesting access from IT, we have more than a dozen project management tools in our catalog)"

I'd suggest a descriptive name. Baking what makes it unique in the name would be ideal, but even narrowing it down to a category, like your version of my message had, would be an improvement. Knowing what class of thing the noun is would be an improvement over a tree or a or a sound effect or an obscure foreign concept being equally interchangeable as titles.

Further, while your version wven presupposes that the name is useful enough to narrow it down to a category, if the name was specific enough it would avoid the confusion of your example. "Which program of this category? Oh, the one with that unique feature."

Re: Show HN: Oak – Git alternative designed for agents

#215

Post by GroksBarnacles »

jayknight wrote: post #94
GroksBarnacles wrote: post #66

I wish we as a society would stop using random words for products. "Slacked about Oak, but they need in Fizzle. The deck's in Slate, the assets are in Vault, the timeline's in Pulse, the copy's in Quill, the build's in Forge, and the launch party's already in Ember."

Aren't all product names "random" words before they become well known? Some are more descriptive than others, but they're all arbitrary to begin with.

No, if a name gives some hint as to what the product does, it isn't random.
Post reply on HN