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

Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

sqlite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 454 posts

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#61

Post by hot_gril »

maxxk wrote: post #42
ohthatsnotright wrote: post #21

I'm glad Fossil works for them, but this line is bothered me: > In contrast, Fossil is a single standalone binary which is installed by putting it on $PATH. That one binary contains all the functionality of core Git and also GitHub and/or GitLab. It manages a community server with wiki, bug tracking, and forums, provides packaged downloads for consumers, login managements, and so forth, with no extra software require…

> git, for all its issues, is not bundling the kitchen sink. It doesn't bundle the kitchen sink in its native *nix environment, but for Windows it does. Git installer is > 50 MB, including (if I remember correctly) even a terminal. While you can download Fossil as a 3.3 MB standalone binary for any supported platform.

I remember people installing git-bash and putty for Windows in computer science class to fill in all the gaps. Idk what the deal was with that cause, uh, why would I use Windows.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#62

Post by kstrauser »

hprotagonist wrote: post #54
forrestthewoods wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and do it well If only Git did it well! Ok that’s not fair. Git is pretty okay for the Linux open source project. But it’s pretty mediocre-to-bad for everything else. The D is DVCS is a waste of effort. Almost all projects are defacto centralized. In fact the D is anti-pattern that makes things like large binary files a still unsolved problem in Git. And no Git LFS doesn’t count. Source control should be capable fo…

> The D is DVCS is a waste of effort. until the de facto centralized remote goes offline and you’re stuck with no local history …

Or on a plane. It’s nice to have 100% of its functionality when you have 0% of your usual connectivity. Branches, commits, merges, all from the local file system? Yes, please.

There’s a reason we moved off centralized VCS en masse.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#63

Post by soerxpso »

somenewaccount1 wrote: post #59

>Git focuses on individual branches, because that is exactly what you want for a highly-distributed bazaar-style project such as Linux. Linus Torvalds does not want to see every check-in by every contributor to Linux: such extreme visibility does not scale well. Contrast Fossil, which was written for the cathedral-style SQLite project and its handful of active committers Ugh...so after all that fanfare of how amazing…

Personally I see "doesn't scale well" as a feature, if I'm evaluating something to use on a personal or small project. Tools with clear limits on what they're not for usually have a more polished experience for what they are for.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#64

Post by em-bee »

Thaxll wrote: post #6

I think the explanation does not make any sense in 2023, if 99.99% of dev use Git you have to use Git, using your own solution that no one else uses or know or need to know is bad. If you want to make your project more open to contribution you have to use what the rest of the industry is using. Edit: After reading some responses, I'm really surprised that sqlite does not accept contributions.

well, it is not that difficult to convert from one revision control system to another, at least among git, mercurial, bazaar and other equally featureful systems, which includes fossil too i would expect. maybe some of them are more featureful and track stuff that git doesn't so conversion would loose some data, but i don't see that as a problem. (a lesser system that doesn't track everything git has might be an issue, but actually not even that, since all we need is interoperability not full conversion)

mercurial has a plugin to support git, and the reverse exists too. for bazaar as well. interestingly fossil can export to git, and a git repo can be converted, but it can't pull updates from git into fossil. i wonder why.

anyways, the point is, because interoperability exists and is possible there is no technical reason not to use alternative tools despite everyone else using git.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#65

Post by fritzo »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #49
ohthatsnotright wrote: post #21

I'm glad Fossil works for them, but this line is bothered me: > In contrast, Fossil is a single standalone binary which is installed by putting it on $PATH. That one binary contains all the functionality of core Git and also GitHub and/or GitLab. It manages a community server with wiki, bug tracking, and forums, provides packaged downloads for consumers, login managements, and so forth, with no extra software require…

> and do it well If only Git did it well! Ok that’s not fair. Git is pretty okay for the Linux open source project. But it’s pretty mediocre-to-bad for everything else. The D is DVCS is a waste of effort. Almost all projects are defacto centralized. In fact the D is anti-pattern that makes things like large binary files a still unsolved problem in Git. And no Git LFS doesn’t count. Source control should be capable fo…

That D in DVCS is much appreciated when my power goes off, my internet goes down, etc.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#66

Post by FpUser »

mintplant wrote: post #25
NBJack wrote: post #7

I think there are some legitimate criticisms of Git here. But some of them are...odd. Despite using Git in a variety of circumstances, from a local personal repo project to very large company repos, I admit I haven't run into about half of these issues. > The closest I have found is the network, which is slow to render (unless it is already cached), does not offer nearly as much details, and scarcely works at all on…

All the time. I would say at least 50% of my code browsing is done from my phone. I make heavy use of the mobile GitHub web interface for this (find-references support has been a godsend, search is still meh, I hate how they keep breaking basic find-in-page with SPA jank). Also Searchfox [0] when I need to comb through Firefox code (fast, excellent, no complaints—well, I guess blame on mobile could be better). Contex…

Can't imagine reading code on those tiny screens.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#67

Post by oxfordmale »

somenewaccount1 wrote: post #59

>Git focuses on individual branches, because that is exactly what you want for a highly-distributed bazaar-style project such as Linux. Linus Torvalds does not want to see every check-in by every contributor to Linux: such extreme visibility does not scale well. Contrast Fossil, which was written for the cathedral-style SQLite project and its handful of active committers Ugh...so after all that fanfare of how amazing…

I have a love hate relationship with Git. It is current used for a lot of purposes it was never designed for by Torvald. It is time for something better, unfortunately Fossil isn't likely going to be a Git successor.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#68

Post by somenewaccount1 »

soerxpso wrote: post #63
somenewaccount1 wrote: post #59

>Git focuses on individual branches, because that is exactly what you want for a highly-distributed bazaar-style project such as Linux. Linus Torvalds does not want to see every check-in by every contributor to Linux: such extreme visibility does not scale well. Contrast Fossil, which was written for the cathedral-style SQLite project and its handful of active committers Ugh...so after all that fanfare of how amazing…

Personally I see "doesn't scale well" as a feature, if I'm evaluating something to use on a personal or small project. Tools with clear limits on what they're not for usually have a more polished experience for what they are for.

Which is why I said he should be more upfront about it. I had to find that statement buried after 30 minutes of reading how amazing fossil was.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#69

Post by duxup »

samspenc wrote: post #17
Thaxll wrote: post #6

I think the explanation does not make any sense in 2023, if 99.99% of dev use Git you have to use Git, using your own solution that no one else uses or know or need to know is bad. If you want to make your project more open to contribution you have to use what the rest of the industry is using. Edit: After reading some responses, I'm really surprised that sqlite does not accept contributions.

I upvoted the post since I think it's a overall interesting technical discussion of git's downsides and some fossil upsides. But my response would be the same as what I argue in these React or other "popular-vs-other-frameworks" discussions that come: the alternatives may be better, faster, easier etc - BUT: - The popular solution has the larger ecosystem, and there are more existing plugins or modules you can plug-a…

>I upvoted the post since I think it's a overall interesting technical discussion of git's downsides and some fossil upsides.

Agreed, I disagree with the other person's point of view, but I find it an interesting point / discussion.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#70

Post by [deleted] »

fritzo wrote: post #65
forrestthewoods wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and do it well If only Git did it well! Ok that’s not fair. Git is pretty okay for the Linux open source project. But it’s pretty mediocre-to-bad for everything else. The D is DVCS is a waste of effort. Almost all projects are defacto centralized. In fact the D is anti-pattern that makes things like large binary files a still unsolved problem in Git. And no Git LFS doesn’t count. Source control should be capable fo…

That D in DVCS is much appreciated when my power goes off, my internet goes down, etc.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN