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

Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

fossil-scm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 559 posts

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#371

Post by chucky »

bhaak wrote: post #313
philbarr wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can go back and change a commit message with ammend? Or are you wanting to change other people's? https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/rewriting-history#gi...

Look at the URL: "rewriting-history" Ammending changes the hash of the commit. That doesn't matter if you haven't pushed it yet but if you have, you can't push the change upstream without force-pushing. And if I want to change a commit message further back in history (regardless of my own or of somebody else), it would branch off at that point from the upstream git history. What I want is that you could put multiple…

You can accomplish something like this by using git-notes (https://git-scm.com/docs/git-notes). You'd have to have your own tooling to read/write these in a convenient way of course.

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#372

Post by matheusmoreira »

hn_acc_1 wrote: post #38
ken wrote: post #19

Every version control system that's become dominant in my lifetime became popular because it fixed a major obvious flaw in the previous dominant system (RCS, CVS, SVN). From where I sit, Git has a couple obvious flaws, and I expect its successor will be the one that fixes one of them. The most obvious (and probably easiest) is the monorepo/polyrepo dichotomy.

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

Git submodules have lots of problems. I wanted it to work like a symbolic link to another repository so that I could develop both at the same time on the same machine. Just like how pip allows me to install a Python package in editable mode. If I make a change in the submodule, the superproject should automatically see it.

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#373

Post by jerf »

int_19h wrote: post #261
rumanator wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the distinction you're drawing between code history and paperwork history is more arbitrary than you give it credit. I don't agree. The responsibility of a version control system is to manage the changes made to the source code. The paperwork that goes with it is an entirely different, and separate, responsibility, just like ticketing systems and keeping track of tasks, epics, sprints, etc. > If all we care…

If you can annotate an entire commit with a message, why not allow annotating parts of a commit (file/span) with a message, and why not allow those messages to form threads? At which point you get code review that is logged entirely in the history of the repo. Which is a very useful feature, and a huge value proposition of GitHub over raw git - git blame gives you the commit, but GitHub will also gives you the pull r…

You could actually do that today with the Git model if you want to, so, arguably, the question is, why doesn't your code review tool already put its history in git?

(Probably some combination of nobody asking for it, and in some cases, wanting to keep your code review process locked in to the tool.)

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#374

Post by ori_b »

adrianmsmith wrote: post #312
saurik wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another simple tracking thing that git doesn't do that would easily make git much much better is if it tracked when you did a cherrypick of another commit in the commit graph (not just as some kind of metadata comment in the commit message, but as a kind of soft parent); then if you did a rebase, you could actually "reverse engineer" the rebase (if and only if you absolutely needed to, such as to track what happened…

Another thing that Git does not track - I saw a web designer check in a huge hierarchy of empty directories which would be the structure of the new project that their team should work on. They were quite surprised when it didn't show up on any of the other designer's computers after a "pull". They had to go to the "Git guru" for help. Windows and Mac both have directories as a major fundamental concept. Everyone know…

I also can't figure out why it doesn't: An empty tree object should be sufficient to do the job. I actually had to write extra code in git9[1] to avoid accidentally allowing empty directories.

[1] https://github.com/oridb/git9

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#375

Post by wyoung2 »

Ntrails wrote: post #332
alkonaut wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's simple and elegant as a data structure, when what people need and want is something that is (at least also) simple and elegant in its UX and most importantly VERY simple and elegant for the 80/20 use cases. For example a typical question on Stackoverflow is "How do I answer which branch this branch was created from", always has 10 smug answers saying "You can't because git doesn't really track that, bran…

As a very basic git user, about once a month my local git repository will get into a state I cannot fix. I cannot revert, cannot reset, cannot make it just fucking be the same as origin/master. Usually I accidentally committed to local master and then did a couple other things and it's just easier to blat and re-clone than work out how to resolve. Git is hard for idiots imo, and there are a lot of us

> Git is hard for idiots imo, and there are a lot of us

Yes, thus https://xkcd.com/1597/

I find myself saying "git reset --hard origin/" and such with disturbing frequency.

Both are examples of "I give up; it's faster to start over." This is not what I want in a DVCS.

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#376

Post by jerf »

dev_north_east wrote: post #368
_ZeD_ wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> [SVN] made an error I don't hear many other people mention where directories were checked out to revisions, rather than entire repositories. that is a feature! You don't know how I miss that! (that, and the handling of blobs)

> that is a feature! You don't know how I miss that! Yep, handiest way to perform a first pass on narrowing down an introduced bug between a few commits.

Have you used "git bisect"?

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#377

Post by smcameron »

taftster wrote: post #188
Ace17 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a 40-people game studio. A major limitation of git is how it deals with many "big" (~10Mb) binary files (3D models, textures, sounds, etc.). We ended up developing our own layer over git, and we're very happy ; even git-lfs can't provide similar benefits. This technique seems to be commonplace for game studios (e.g Naughty Dog, Bungee), so certainly git has room for improvement here.

Do you have tools that you can utilize diffs from your binary file changes? Or does a change simply just replace all the bytes. I'd argue if it's the later, that git was never the right choice to begin with. You don't really want to record a full 10MB of data every time you change one pixel in your texture or one blip in your sound, right? So I don't know if this is a "major limitation" of git per se. Not saying ther…

> You don't really want to record a full 10MB of data every time you change one pixel in your texture or one blip in your sound, right?

Ideally, yes, why wouldn't I? I want to capture the exact state of the thing at each change.

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#378

Post by supportlocal4h »

baq wrote: post #243
tasuki wrote: post #199

> I worry that Git might be the last mass-market DVCS within my lifetime. The possibility of git being the last mass-market DVCS within my lifetime leaves me with warm fuzzy feelings. Git is simple and elegant, though its interface might not be.

here's me sincerely hoping for pijul and/or darcs to deliver something much better. (obviously if it's only a little better then there isn't much point in switching.)

I was hopeful for pijul. But the more time passes without any noticeable progress or traction the less hope I have.

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#379

Post by brigandish »

vvillena wrote: post #355
Ntrails wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a very basic git user, about once a month my local git repository will get into a state I cannot fix. I cannot revert, cannot reset, cannot make it just fucking be the same as origin/master. Usually I accidentally committed to local master and then did a couple other things and it's just easier to blat and re-clone than work out how to resolve. Git is hard for idiots imo, and there are a lot of us

> Usually I accidentally committed to local master and then did a couple other things Create a new branch and check it out while you are on the last commit (git checkout -b my-branch), delete the master branch (git branch -D master), and pull it again (git pull -u origin master). You'll end up with a local branch with a bunch of commits that you can merge, rebase or cherrypick, depending on what you want. If you want…

That is not easier than "blat and re-clone" so I think you're proving their point.

Re: Is Git Irreplaceable? (2019)

#380

Post by SQLite »

theamk wrote: post #317
rhabarba wrote: post #2

Fossil's new(ish) semi-automatic bidirectional interaction with Git mirrors has finally made Mercurial replaceable for me. However, it is hard to ignore that the IT world has mostly decided to settle with whatever is the most commonly used right now, no matter if it is actually the best solution - so at least when it comes to DVCS, the war seems to be over.

Does not Fossil’s “no rebases” philosophy bother you? IMHO, the ability to “commit early, commit often” and to squash/rebase original work later into clean and understandable commits is one of the best features of Git.

https://fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md
Post reply on HN