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

51–60 of 212 posts

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

#51

Post by Ygg2 »

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…

> It also could track renames, which were incredibly painful to merge in SVN.

They are still a pain in Git as well. Rename a class and its usages in C# project, for example, and it randomly breaks based on some arcane heuristics.

As for actual question you posed - partial checkouts. Your artist don't need to checkout code, but can work on it art folder.

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

#53

Post by davorak »

mpweiher wrote: post #26
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 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)_/¯

> To me nothing of substance should happen in the repository,

The idea is that with pijul nothing of substance would happen on the server in this example, it is the same process that would happen if you were doing it all locally.

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

#54

Post by exDM69 »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #40
ajoberstar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have clarified the comment above. A pull is needed before pushing. That pull does not need a merge or a rebase like git does because the order of commits A nd B does not matter (iff they are commutative). This gets a lot more useful when there are more than two patches to consider.

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

#56

Post by WolfeReader »

vim-guru wrote: post #49
magnio wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny username :)

Not intentional; I used vim 10 years ago, but have been an emacser with vim-bindings for the past 7 I guess :)

Personally, I find it quite gratifying to see that a "Vim guru" is also an active Emacs supporter.

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

#57

Post by rapnie »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #31
patates wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

There's also sfconservancy's GiveUpGithub campaign: https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/

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

#58

Post by jillesvangurp »

exDM69 wrote: post #19
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody not using this, it looks like the main obstacles to this getting popular (assuming it works as advertised and it's easy to use, I wouldn't know): - Work on the pitch and clearly state the problem this is solving instead of mainly talking about the competition. What makes this unique? Why should people care? - Make it easy to start using this for teams. My guess is that this is where a lot of developers fa…

This is a chicken and egg problem and I don't see a way out of it. Even if Pijul is better (not voicing an opinion here), it's not drastically better enough to replace Git in widespread use in the near term. The difference in day to day use is not huge. And it is better in handling certain merge situations that are painful in git, but most programmers don't run into these often enough to care. > What makes this uniqu…

I would suggest adapting the website to communicate those points a bit more clearly. The communication on that website isn't great. It's a common problem with things techies build for other techies.

The key friction getting users to switch from something they already use is articulating why that is worth doing and investing lots of time in and/or making the point that it's really easy to switch is the main job of that website. Without that, most people simply won't.

The point with an ecosystem is that there won't ever be one worth talking about unless people work hard to build one. "Build it and they will come" rarely works. This website isn't good enough to make that happen.

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

#59

Post by ccccccc1 »

t43562 wrote: post #37

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…

but you know git and github are not the same thing right?

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

#60

Post by speed_spread »

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…

Pijul eliminates the rift between rebases and merges. That in itself is an enormous gain over the confused git workflow or lack thereof.
Post reply on HN