Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fossil cannot import things from Git which Git does not store. Git has no issue tracker.
Right, but are the local Fossil issues preserved during import?
... (I guess. Need to test that.)
Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
71–80 of 559 posts
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#72Git is a tool to get the jobs done, not a religion.
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#73I am happy to use whatever everyone else starts using, provided it works at least as well. But I also do not have many problems that git won't solve, so I don't feel a burning need to switch. I think git is good enough that source control is no longer a very interesting problem.
But did you think that RCS, CVS, or SVN were also good enough? Or is this new?
These fell by the way side as they never had consensus of being better than SCCS. Now git has the weight of the Linux kernel behind it which pretty much EOL'd all other source control mechanisms.
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
But did you think that RCS, CVS, or SVN were also good enough? Or is this new?
These fell by the way side as they never had consensus of being better than SCCS. Now git has the weight of the Linux kernel behind it which pretty much EOL'd all other source control mechanisms.
That's like saying Windows has pretty much EOL'd every non-Windows desktop. Citation needed.
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#75When people talk about killer features missing in Git, there is more beyond the UX and mono/poly repo. One thing is code review. There is no code review in Git. What I expect in 2020 is that I should be able to specify reviewers for the commit (which I pick out of a list of people who can approve it). These people should be able to leave comments on the commit. I should be able to both respond to comments and modify…
I think it doesn't exist because there is no demand for that to be part of the codes history. Nothing you've described sounds very useful after a month or so.
Sure, but keeping that history is just a small part of what I said.
The point about code review still stands.
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it doesn't exist because there is no demand for that to be part of the codes history. Nothing you've described sounds very useful after a month or so.
Sure, but keeping that history is just a small part of what I said. The point about code review still stands.
That's the one major point where Fossil probably falls short: Extending a repository's capabilities would add overhead to every single one of them (and, potentially, to each commit's meta data).
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the first half of the statement: we indeed do not have a cloud-first version control system. It could bring some real benefits of tight integration with continuous build and other things considered to be essentials nowadays. I don't see files going anywhere. I would like to listen to examples of "code-in-database is already halfway here", if you happen to have them.
My startup is one http://www.hyperfiddle.net/ Others are https://darklang.com/ and https://www.unisonweb.org/ and of course scripting google sheets with javascript Low-code is very suddenly going to be a big thing in the next couple years and when it happens there are now 750M more "coders" and those types of people are not interested in git pull --rebase --fucked --whatdidido
Thank you, very interesting pointers!
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any obvious flaws with Git. The monorepo/polyrepo discussion exists apart from your choice of version control system and has little to do with Git, as far as I can tell
> I don't see any obvious flaws with Git. Merge conflicts.
Merge conflicts are not so scary, and are an elegant way to handle distributed changes with simultaneous edits to a single file.
If the conflict is huge, rebasing can help you by "playing" the commits from one branch one at a time so the conflicts are smaller / easier to fix.
At a previous job, a team was forced to use checkout-style VCS due to their manager's unfounded fear of merge conflicts; I couldn't go in that office without hearing one developer shout to another: "Hey, can you finish up and check in that file so I can get started on my changes?"
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#79When people talk about killer features missing in Git, there is more beyond the UX and mono/poly repo. One thing is code review. There is no code review in Git. What I expect in 2020 is that I should be able to specify reviewers for the commit (which I pick out of a list of people who can approve it). These people should be able to leave comments on the commit. I should be able to both respond to comments and modify…
Iron [1] definitely has the right idea.
Code review comments really should live next to the code, and proper editor integration goes a really long way. Traditional review processes make “just fixing the code” have a very high inertia.
[1] https://blog.janestreet.com/ironing-out-your-release-process...
Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see any obvious flaws with Git. Merge conflicts.
Merge conflicts are not so scary, and are an elegant way to handle distributed changes with simultaneous edits to a single file. If the conflict is huge, rebasing can help you by "playing" the commits from one branch one at a time so the conflicts are smaller / easier to fix. At a previous job, a team was forced to use checkout-style VCS due to their manager's unfounded fear of merge conflicts; I couldn't go in that…
Sounds like something that would have been solved by using Darcs instead, honestly.