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

31–40 of 212 posts

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

#31

Post by BlueTemplar »

patates wrote: post #8
BlueTemplar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github also managed to succeed through being a kind of social network (think "stars"). If you care about Github's dominance being an issue, walk the walk : refuse to do bug reports through it, publicly shame people and companies that use it or advertise it.

If I care about one thing, I should "shame" others who do not care about it? It feels like your comment escalates things up too quickly. Could it be that you wanted to expand your thoughts in between and didn't have the time or just forgot?

It's a comment, not a blogpost, I am assuming some familiarity on HN with these issues, why using Github would be considered bad behavior :

An actual blogpost :

https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/28/Dont-use-Discord-for-FOSS...

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

#32

Post by shane_kerns »

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…

I believe that even git would work in this scenario because a.txt and b.txt are separate and independent thus a rebase in git is not required. The point at which this becomes an issue is when both person A and B try to make changes to the same file and specifically the same blob of text within that file. I could be wrong but this should be simple enough to prove out because I've run into this situation before where I forgot to rebase before pushing my changes but git still accepted the changes as they were independent of the changes that person B made.

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

#33

Post by rkangel »

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…

Thank you for answering.

For me "not needing to pull before pushing" is nice, but not game changing (but helpful to understand nonetheless).

It's more the cases that you allude to that we instinctively avoid in git!

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

#34

Post by gugagore »

h4ch1 wrote: post #15

Just like how Sapling is compatible with GitHub, I'd love to see Pijul being compatible with GitHub wrt creating at least a read-only mirror. I've seen this exists: https://github.com/purplesyringa/PijulGit , but hasn't been updated in 5 years.

Is sapling compatible? It gets rid of your .git directory.

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

#36

Post by baq »

thesz wrote: post #29
baq wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True.

In my defense, 3-way merges are older :)

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

#37

Post by t43562 »

I used darcs before git and it was very nice - the first distributed RCS I'd ever used. I believe pijul is a follow-on to that so it should be great. Later on I used Mercurial and it was very easy with a great GUI and it felt safe.

git is like shaving with a straight shaving razor - alarming until you've developed your set of frequently used commands and ways to stay out of trouble.

Even I have to use git because who uses anything else? Every project that I know that used Mercurial dropped it in the hope of getting more contributions.

We have all rushed like Lemmings into Github - now owned by those nice people at Microsoft - who have used it to automate our jobs with copilot. How ridiculous that Open Source has been embraced into the clutches of the Empire on such a scale! :-) I am joking but only a bit.

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

#38

Post by CuriousCosmic »

shane_kerns wrote: post #32
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…

I believe that even git would work in this scenario because a.txt and b.txt are separate and independent thus a rebase in git is not required. The point at which this becomes an issue is when both person A and B try to make changes to the same file and specifically the same blob of text within that file. I could be wrong but this should be simple enough to prove out because I've run into this situation before where I…

git wouldn't accept a push with conflicting changes on the remote but that's just because pushes are dumb (not bad, they just don't do anything fancy).

The solution would be to pull upstream changes (so you know what you are potentially pushing your changes into) and then push.

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

#40

Post by CuriousCosmic »

ajoberstar wrote: post #27
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.

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.

Which tbh is a bad thing. Just because change a doesn't textually touch change b doesn't mean they don't interact.

Unless your VCS is handling CI for integrating changes on push, you really need to pull down the upstream changes first and test them combined with your code before blindly pushing.

Post reply on HN