81–90 of 416 posts
I am kinda surprised that Microsoft doesn't use tfs - after all, it's their own version control system. But then again, we use tfs at work and not a day goes by on which I do not long for git.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why split it into separate modules? Seeing that big companies are very successful with monorepos (Google, Facebook, Microsoft), has made me reconsider if repository modularization is actually worth it. There are a host of advantages to not modularizing repos, and I'm beginning to believe they outweigh those of modular repos.
Wait so like, at google, Inbox and Android are in the same repo as ChromeOS and oh I dunno, Google Search? That doesn't make any sense at all...
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why split it into separate modules? Seeing that big companies are very successful with monorepos (Google, Facebook, Microsoft), has made me reconsider if repository modularization is actually worth it. There are a host of advantages to not modularizing repos, and I'm beginning to believe they outweigh those of modular repos.
Wait so like, at google, Inbox and Android are in the same repo as ChromeOS and oh I dunno, Google Search? That doesn't make any sense at all...
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor...
hg is still behind this, AFAI can tell from search. FB has this as an extension. https://bitbucket.org/facebook/hg-experimental/
Is FB fully using hg internally, or both Git and hg, because obviously FB has public repo on Github.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the virtualization work equally well for lots of history as it does for large working copies? I have a 100k commit svn repo I have been trying to migrate but the result is just too large. Partly this is due to tons of revisions of binary files that must be in the repo. Does the virtualization also help provide a shallow set of recent commits locally but keep all history at the server (which is hundreds of gigs t…
GVFS helps in both dimensions, working copy and lots of history. For the lots of history case, the win is simply not downloading all the old content. A GVFS clone will contain all of the commits and all of the trees but none of the blobs. This lets you operate on history as normal, so long as you don't need the file content. As soon as you touch file content, GVFS will download those blobs on demand.
A handful of us from the product team are around for a few hours to discuss if you're interested.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why split it into separate modules? Seeing that big companies are very successful with monorepos (Google, Facebook, Microsoft), has made me reconsider if repository modularization is actually worth it. There are a host of advantages to not modularizing repos, and I'm beginning to believe they outweigh those of modular repos.
Wait so like, at google, Inbox and Android are in the same repo as ChromeOS and oh I dunno, Google Search? That doesn't make any sense at all...
At one point, I believe Microsoft was using a modified Perforce server for source code. Is that completely gone now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, this is actually pretty common. I know that both Google and Facebook use a huge mono-repo for literally everything (except I think Facebook split out their Android code into a separate repo?). So, all of Facebook's and Google's code for front-end, back-end, tools, infrastructure, literally everything, lives in one repo. It's news to me that Windows decided to go that route too. Personally, I think submodules and…
pros to big repo: -dont have to spend time to think about defining interfaces cons: -history is full of crap you dont care about -tests take forever to run -tooling breaks down completely, though thanks to MS the limit was increased seriously