31–40 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I gave up after 5 seconds. Blog authors need a straight up TL;DR because I ain't reading all of that.
This is my dilemma. Do I feel like giving up because it isn’t written well or because my attention span is shot? Hard to tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> virtual filesystems everywhere Please universe I beg you. Git is incredibly mediocre. But it's all most people know. It's a version control tool that can't handle binary files; and no GitLFS does not count. The end result is a version control tool that is unable to actually version control all the things you need for a project. This results in a Meta VCS layer where a ton of critical assets are stored in Docker fil…
Visual Studio and Xcode take up tens of gigabytes, are updated often, and include system components. Storing them in VCS is impossible, and would be a waste of disk space.
It's not impossible, there just isn't that much demand for it.
I use git+lfs for unity projects and it works out great. If I had a real studio I'd buy some perforce seats.
Reinventing the wheel like this is quite exhausting. There are options that are proven to work. AI authorship does not fundamentally violate the idea of some thing owning a specific commit. We don't need new schemas in our source control system. "Provenance" is a bullshit word used to make the AI sound like it's some kind of oracular source with superhuman capabilities.
2/3 down the article I gave up. What are you trying to tell me? What is this revolution about? How are agent things fundamentally different and how are they being solved? What is this "second coming"? Also, why "second"? Was git the first? But then what about all the other things before it? CVS was huge before, for better or worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> virtual filesystems everywhere Please universe I beg you. Git is incredibly mediocre. But it's all most people know. It's a version control tool that can't handle binary files; and no GitLFS does not count. The end result is a version control tool that is unable to actually version control all the things you need for a project. This results in a Meta VCS layer where a ton of critical assets are stored in Docker fil…
Visual Studio and Xcode take up tens of gigabytes, are updated often, and include system components. Storing them in VCS is impossible, and would be a waste of disk space.
Putting toolchains in perforce is how it works for lots of C++ shops, the setup instructions are “sync and hit build”, whether there’s a toolchain upgrade required or not
It's great to see some moves to break up this great calcification around git. Gut greatest contribution to version control was stagnation. The space was evolving with great fresh ideas before git became a quasi-religion among the early adopters because Linus made it in a day and therefore it must be great or something. I'm exaggerating somewhat, but the zeal of some people back then was next level annoying. Beyond th…
While you're right about the disadvantages of git, pretending that it became ubiquitous because it "became a quasi-religion because Linus made it in a day" is selling short its advantages. If you think about it for even just a little bit, it should be obvious what a simplistic statement that it. Also, git was not the stagnation you make it out to be. Even with its warts, it was a breath of fresh air, not unlike jujutsu is now a breath of fresh air vs git.
I remember working with SVN, and all things considered, git was a vast net improvement. Git took a lot of pain away. It made working with a versioned code base faster and simpler, to the point of enabling much better collaborative software development. There's a reason we got GitHub and not SVNhub. And GitHub was what helped git become so dominant.
Would it have been better if Mercurial had beat out git in the propularity contest? Possibly? There's trade-offs between the two, but Mercurial's easier interface counts for a lot. But if it had won, I'm sure we'd be griping about its shortcomings by now.
So yeah, I'm also happy to see some movement around the ergonomics of version control, but I don't understand the need to disparage the tools that got us where we are. It just seems that you're more bitter than happy, and like you're letting that bitterness cloud your judgment.
2/3 down the article I gave up. What are you trying to tell me? What is this revolution about? How are agent things fundamentally different and how are they being solved? What is this "second coming"? Also, why "second"? Was git the first? But then what about all the other things before it? CVS was huge before, for better or worse.
I gave up after 5 seconds. Blog authors need a straight up TL;DR because I ain't reading all of that.
> GitHub has done too many great things over the years, so I hope it remains, but there is obviously an earthquake going on.
Is the 'earthquake' referring to the frequent outages over the last couple of years, and if so are those outages because Microsoft can't keep up with the demand?
It's closer to 'too relevant' than it is to 'no longer relevant'.
In fact, the way I use Git is hardly any different, I have no interest in getting a black belt in git magic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I gave up after 5 seconds. Blog authors need a straight up TL;DR because I ain't reading all of that.
Well, I like a good story, there is big potential in this long form stuff that's more than a tweet or two. There can be a great reward when the crux is revealed after building a foundation and then looking at it from different angles. But if that crux never comes then it's really just leaving a feeling of disappointment and waste of time that I invested into reading all this. And that does a disservice to everybody e…