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

Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

pijul.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 212 posts

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#21

Post by trklausss »

ykonstant wrote: post #6

I seem to recall very positive comments regarding pijul's underlying architecture/theory. However, as I don't have the headspace to delve into it, I would love a blurb at the beginner level that highlights the benefits of using pijul compared to other VCS, and a very brief and simple comparison between pijul and git (focusing on the differences).

That sounds very much like something you could copy-paste on ChatGPT and get a somewhat good answer.

That you definitely would have to double check because it might be that it hallucinates.

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#22

Post by hombrebuffalo »

exDM69 wrote: post #20
rkangel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same question every time Pijul comes up on HN, and I have yet to get an answer: Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? I am a complete believer on a sound underlying model producing better results for users at a high level, but I'm not clear on how it maps through for Pijul. I think that's what they're…

> Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? Simplified example: Persons A and B check out master branch. Person A adds a.txt, commits and pushes. Person B adds b.txt, commits and tries to push and... 1) git will not accept the push because it's not on top of current master branch, person B needs to fetch and merge/re…

Does that only apply to adding new files? The changes in commit A could affect the behavior of the changes in commit B even if they are different files.

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#23

Post by ynniv »

exDM69 wrote: post #20
rkangel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same question every time Pijul comes up on HN, and I have yet to get an answer: Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? I am a complete believer on a sound underlying model producing better results for users at a high level, but I'm not clear on how it maps through for Pijul. I think that's what they're…

> Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? Simplified example: Persons A and B check out master branch. Person A adds a.txt, commits and pushes. Person B adds b.txt, commits and tries to push and... 1) git will not accept the push because it's not on top of current master branch, person B needs to fetch and merge/re…

git can already do this as long as there isn't a conflict. Maybe pijul has better three way conflict resolution, but those can be risky, and avoiding those rare situations wouldn't offset the vast amount of tooling that got has.

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#24

Post by exDM69 »

hombrebuffalo wrote: post #22
exDM69 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? Simplified example: Persons A and B check out master branch. Person A adds a.txt, commits and pushes. Person B adds b.txt, commits and tries to push and... 1) git will not accept the push because it's not on top of current master branch, person B needs to fetch and merge/re…

Does that only apply to adding new files? The changes in commit A could affect the behavior of the changes in commit B even if they are different files.

No, it applies to everything. If adding patches A and B (same or different files) will lead to same result regardless of which order they are applied, they are called "commutative" and pijul won't care which order they are in your history.

It only tracks content of files, not semantic or behavior changes.

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#25

Post by baq »

ynniv wrote: post #23
exDM69 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? Simplified example: Persons A and B check out master branch. Person A adds a.txt, commits and pushes. Person B adds b.txt, commits and tries to push and... 1) git will not accept the push because it's not on top of current master branch, person B needs to fetch and merge/re…

git can already do this as long as there isn't a conflict. Maybe pijul has better three way conflict resolution, but those can be risky, and avoiding those rare situations wouldn't offset the vast amount of tooling that got has.

pijul has a lot of theory and engineering to figure them out, dealing with them better than git is one of the major reasons it exists at all, and darcs before it.

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#26

Post by mpweiher »

exDM69 wrote: post #20
rkangel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same question every time Pijul comes up on HN, and I have yet to get an answer: Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? I am a complete believer on a sound underlying model producing better results for users at a high level, but I'm not clear on how it maps through for Pijul. I think that's what they're…

> Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? Simplified example: Persons A and B check out master branch. Person A adds a.txt, commits and pushes. Person B adds b.txt, commits and tries to push and... 1) git will not accept the push because it's not on top of current master branch, person B needs to fetch and merge/re…

> git will not accept the push because it's not on top of current master branch, person B needs to fetch and merge/rebase before pushing again.

Hmm...that seems like a feature to me, not a bug.

To me nothing of substance should happen in the repository, it should all happen in the local working directory.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#27

Post by ajoberstar »

ynniv wrote: post #23
exDM69 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? Simplified example: Persons A and B check out master branch. Person A adds a.txt, commits and pushes. Person B adds b.txt, commits and tries to push and... 1) git will not accept the push because it's not on top of current master branch, person B needs to fetch and merge/re…

git can already do this as long as there isn't a conflict. Maybe pijul has better three way conflict resolution, but those can be risky, and avoiding those rare situations wouldn't offset the vast amount of tooling that got has.

Git would make you merge or rebase, but yes there wouldn't be a conflict. They're saying Pijul would let you directly push without having to deal with the diverging histories.

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#28

Post by baq »

rkangel wrote: post #16
ykonstant wrote: post #6

I seem to recall very positive comments regarding pijul's underlying architecture/theory. However, as I don't have the headspace to delve into it, I would love a blurb at the beginner level that highlights the benefits of using pijul compared to other VCS, and a very brief and simple comparison between pijul and git (focusing on the differences).

I have the same question every time Pijul comes up on HN, and I have yet to get an answer: Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? I am a complete believer on a sound underlying model producing better results for users at a high level, but I'm not clear on how it maps through for Pijul. I think that's what they're…

any time you rebase the same feature branch onto current main and solve the same conflicts pijul could probably do much better without hacks like rerere (which most people also do not use, so...)

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#29

Post by thesz »

baq wrote: post #25
ynniv wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git can already do this as long as there isn't a conflict. Maybe pijul has better three way conflict resolution, but those can be risky, and avoiding those rare situations wouldn't offset the vast amount of tooling that got has.

pijul has a lot of theory and engineering to figure them out, dealing with them better than git is one of the major reasons it exists at all, and darcs before it.

> darcs before it.

Darcs is older than git.

Re: Pijul is a free and open source (GPL2) distributed version control system

#30

Post by exDM69 »

ynniv wrote: post #23
exDM69 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone give me a real world example (person a makes X change, person b makes y change etc. etc.) that would work better in Pijul than Git? Simplified example: Persons A and B check out master branch. Person A adds a.txt, commits and pushes. Person B adds b.txt, commits and tries to push and... 1) git will not accept the push because it's not on top of current master branch, person B needs to fetch and merge/re…

git can already do this as long as there isn't a conflict. Maybe pijul has better three way conflict resolution, but those can be risky, and avoiding those rare situations wouldn't offset the vast amount of tooling that got has.

You kinda missed the point.

You have two repos with different history:

master -> patch a -> patch b

master -> patch b -> patch a

But the contents of the files are equal after applying both patches (in either order).

Git will consider these to be two different, Pijul thinks they're the same.

This is a simplified example. It only gets interesting when there are a lot of patches, some of which are commutative and some are not.

Post reply on HN