221–230 of 440 posts
Personally, I'd not want to check any assets into such a tool before it becomes open-source.
The world needs a git alternative. Anyone who has used mercurial at Google or Facebook knows the tooling could be much better. As soon as you have 2-3 people committing to the same repo daily, git falls apart fast. The biggest difficulties with git are merging and branch rebasing. If git could do rebases better, I would suspect software development teams to universally move about 20% faster.
It's about time someone revisited & reimagined version control. the previous generations each lasted about 15 years: SCCS/RCS -> CVS -> Bitbucket/git/mercurial -> ??? so I am glad to see this. I would start by talking about what is great about Diversion -- what it lets you do that you couldn't before. Since you mention gaming and perforce I looked in vain to see if it supports binaries (a major limitation of git -- j…
VCS is sort of a solved problem like SQL.
it's like saying it's about time someone revisited those Javascript frameworks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As for losing data with Git, the easiest way to accomplish that is with data that hasn't been committed yet Also Git has pretty awful behavior losing changes when one doesn't press "Save" in their IDE. Bad, bad Git.
Your applications also shouldn't lose work when you don't press save, this is the entire impetus for the "recover unsaved work" in most document editors. A version of Git that shunted uncommitted changes to a special named stash whenever you did anything destructive would be a positive thing. It's what I end up doing manually anyway but why make a system where the default behavior is destructive and I have to remembe…
Not only is it quite careful about not losing data, someone actually took the time to make it spit out messages that not only describes what just happened, but also gives suggestions of what to do next depending on how the user wants to proceed. That adds a level of discoverability that is usually associated with dialog based guis. The quality of these messages can sometimes be surprisingly good, far from the Clippy-level helpfulness you sometimes see.
There are a few exceptions to the principle of not losing local changes, where you explicitly restore an old version of a file for example. But saying the default behaviour is destructive really gives a false impression.
But yes, you are absolutely right that a system to recover unsaved work is a good thing, but I would argue that it belongs at the editor level, not in a version control system. A user could have a number of files open that have local changes. The editor has a much better idea in which order changes were made, and which changes hasn't even been committed to disk yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being deceptive about Git's shortcomings Are they being deceptive? I'm not sure I see it.
The story about irrevocably losing data at least was not true (already admitted by the authors).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Micorosoft adopted Git for Windows, they faced this problem and solved it. On Windows. On Linux Git still doesn't scale well to very large repos. Before you say "but Linux uses git!", we're talking repos that are much bugger than Linux. Also the de facto large file "solution" is LFS, which is another half baked idea that doesn't really do the job. You sound like you're offended that Git isn't perfect because y…
>> When Micorosoft adopted Git for Windows, they faced this problem and solved it. > On Windows. On Linux Git still doesn't scale well to very large repos. All of Microsoft's solutions for git scaling have been cross-platform. Even VFS had a FUSE driver if you wanted it, but VFS is no longer Microsoft's recommended solution either, having moved on to things like sparse "cone" checkouts and commit-graphs, almost all o…
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-config#Documentation/git-config...
The world needs a git alternative. Anyone who has used mercurial at Google or Facebook knows the tooling could be much better. As soon as you have 2-3 people committing to the same repo daily, git falls apart fast. The biggest difficulties with git are merging and branch rebasing. If git could do rebases better, I would suspect software development teams to universally move about 20% faster.
“git merge origin/master”
Done. Unless you have a conflict, then fix it and commit. It couldn’t be simpler.
If there’s value in this product, it won’t be because it’s somehow simpler than git.
Disclaimer: I am designing a Git alternative too. Maybe "cloud native" will have a pull for game companies, but I am not so sure. I think a lot of studios would want to self-host. "Git compatible" is an interesting phrase; does Diversion use the same type of backing store? If so, I am not so sure it will handle large files as well as hoped. I had to solve this problem myself, and I did, but it required a different st…
> I am taking zero VC, and that will allow me to make money on as few as three clients. A VC would give you legitimacy to help you get the customers you need. What large customers are going to back you with their business unless they know there's some deep pockets behind you? There are few things more valuable than a business's source code, it encapsulates all of their business processes and is how all of the busines…
Trust isn’t built by who backs you though. Does it make it an easier sell? Maybe, but as a buyer, if that’s what you’re leaning on to sell to me, I’m going to be put off.
If it comes down to two, I’d trial both and care about how well it does before caring about who is backing who. In the end, I might choose the smaller company and negotiate access to source code to hedge them going under. And that sounds like an even better deal than some VC’s trying to “monetize the fuck out of me” in three years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am taking zero VC, and that will allow me to make money on as few as three clients. A VC would give you legitimacy to help you get the customers you need. What large customers are going to back you with their business unless they know there's some deep pockets behind you? There are few things more valuable than a business's source code, it encapsulates all of their business processes and is how all of the busines…
You make good points. My VCS is designed for self-hosting, not cloud. I will support customer installations, not host customer source code. I am hoping that customers see less of a need for deep pockets in that case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am taking zero VC, and that will allow me to make money on as few as three clients. A VC would give you legitimacy to help you get the customers you need. What large customers are going to back you with their business unless they know there's some deep pockets behind you? There are few things more valuable than a business's source code, it encapsulates all of their business processes and is how all of the busines…
I mean, insurance is cheap. I have professional insurance allowing me to personally do several million in damages due to a mistake. Or recover your losses if I give bad advice. All for the low cost of 50 bucks per month, purchased through a local dev-co-op. Trust isn’t built by who backs you though. Does it make it an easier sell? Maybe, but as a buyer, if that’s what you’re leaning on to sell to me, I’m going to be…