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

I made my own Git

tonystr.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 184 posts

Re: I made my own Git

#141

Post by program_whiz »

wredcoll wrote: post #115
program_whiz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while I think this is a fun idea -- we are in such a dystopian timeline that I fear you will end up being prosecuted under a digital equivalent of various laws like "why did you attack the intruder instead of fleeing" or "you can't simply remove a squatter because its your house, therefore you get an assault charge." A kind of "they found this code, therefore you have a duty not to poison their model as they take it.…

Look, I get the fantasy of someday pulling out my musket^W ar15 and rushing downstairs to blow away my wife^W an evil intruder, but, like, we live in a society. And it has a lot of benefits, but it does mean you don't get to be "king of your castle" any more. Living in a country with hundreds of millions of other civilians or a city with tens of thousands means compromising what you're allowed to do when it affects o…

Thanks that was the term I was looking for "attractive nuisance". I wouldn't be surprised if a tech company could make that case -- this user caused us tangible harm and cost (training, poisoned models) and left their data out for us to consume. Its the equivalent of putting poison candy on a park table your honor!

Re: I made my own Git

#142

Post by rob74 »

speed_spread wrote: post #127
theLiminator wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very cool though I imagine it's doa due to lack of git compatibility...

Lack of current-SCM incumbent compatibility can be an advantage. Like Linus decided to explicitly do the reverse of every SVN decision when designing git. He even reversed CLI usability!

Pssst! I think Linus didn't as much design Git as he cloned BitKeeper (or at least the parts of it he liked). I have never used it, but if you look at the BitKeeper documentation, it sounds strangely familiar: https://www.bitkeeper.org/testdrive.html . Of course, that made sense for him and for the rest of the Linux developers, as they were already familiar with BitKeeper. Not so much for the rest of us though, who are now stuck with the usability (or lack thereof) you mentioned...

Re: I made my own Git

#144

Post by storystarling »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #106
mkleczek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much more principled (and hence less of a foot-gun) way of handling conflicts is making them first class objects in the repository, like https://pijul.org does.

I feel like people making new VCSes should just re-use GIT storage/network layer and innovate on top of that. Git storage is flexible enough for that, and that way you can just.... use it on existing repos with very easy migration path for both workflows (CI/CD never need to care about what frontend you use) and users

The bottleneck with git is actually the on-the-fly packfile generation. The server has to burn CPU calculating deltas for every clone. For a distributed system it seems much better to use a simple content-addressable store where you just serve static blobs.

Re: I made my own Git

#145

Post by pwdisswordfishy »

nasretdinov wrote: post #37

Nice work! On a complete tangent, Git is the only SCM known to me that supports recursive merge strategy [1] (instead of the regular 3-way merge), which essentially always remembers resolved conflicts without you needing to do anything. This is a very underrated feature of Git and somehow people still manage to choose rebase over it. If you ever get to implementing merges, please make sure you have a mechanism for re…

New to me was discovering within the last month that git-merge doesn't have a merge strategy of "null": don't try to resolve any merge conflicts, because I've already taken care of them; just know that this is a merge between the current branch and the one specified on the command-line, so be a dutiful little tool and just add it to your records. Don't try to "help". Don't fuck with the index or the worktree. Just record that this is happening. That's it. Nothing else.

Re: I made my own Git

#146

Post by giancarlostoro »

nasretdinov wrote: post #37

Nice work! On a complete tangent, Git is the only SCM known to me that supports recursive merge strategy [1] (instead of the regular 3-way merge), which essentially always remembers resolved conflicts without you needing to do anything. This is a very underrated feature of Git and somehow people still manage to choose rebase over it. If you ever get to implementing merges, please make sure you have a mechanism for re…

I hate git squash, it only goes one direction and personally I dont give a crap if it took you 100 commits to do one thing, at least now we can see what you may have tried so we dont repeat your mistakes. With git squash it all turns into, this is what they last did that mattered, and btw we cant merge it backwards without it being weird, you have to check out an entirely new branch. I like to continue adding changes to branches I have already merged. Not every PR is the full solution, but a piece of the puzzle. No one can tell me that they only need 1 PR per task because they never have a bug, ever.

Give me normal boring git merges over git squash merges.

Re: I made my own Git

#147

Post by teo_zero »

program_whiz wrote: post #141
wredcoll wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I get the fantasy of someday pulling out my musket^W ar15 and rushing downstairs to blow away my wife^W an evil intruder, but, like, we live in a society. And it has a lot of benefits, but it does mean you don't get to be "king of your castle" any more. Living in a country with hundreds of millions of other civilians or a city with tens of thousands means compromising what you're allowed to do when it affects o…

Thanks that was the term I was looking for "attractive nuisance". I wouldn't be surprised if a tech company could make that case -- this user caused us tangible harm and cost (training, poisoned models) and left their data out for us to consume. Its the equivalent of putting poison candy on a park table your honor!

That reminds me of the protagonist of Charles Stross's novel "Accelerando", a prolific inventor who is accused by the IRS to have caused millions of losses because he releases all his ideas in the public domain instead of profiting from them and paying taxes on such profits.

Re: I made my own Git

#148

Post by aabbcc1241 »

athrowaway3z wrote: post #70

I do wonder if the compression step makes sense at this layer instead of the filesystem layer.

Interesting take. I'm using btrfs (instead of ext4) with compression enabled (using zstd), so most of the files are compressed "transparently" - the files appear as normal files to the applications, but on disk it is compressed, and the application don't need to do the compress/decompress.

Re: I made my own Git

#149

Post by tverbeure »

gxnxcxcx wrote: post #86
evntdrvn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a really great article or blog post published in the last few months about the author's very personal experience whose gist was "People complain that I sound/write like an LLM, but it's actually the inverse because I grew up in X where people are taught formal English to sound educated/western, and those areas are now heavily used for LLM training." I wish I could find it again, if someone else knows the li…

I'm Kenyan. I don't write like ChatGPT, ChatGPT writes like me https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46273466

Thanks for that link.

This part made me laugh though:

> These detectors, as I understand them, often work by measuring two key things: ‘Perplexity’ and ‘burstiness’. Perplexity gauges how predictable a text is. If I start a sentence, "The cat sat on the...", your brain, and the AI, will predict the word "floor."

I can't be the only one who's brain predicted "mat" ?

Re: I made my own Git

#150

Post by SQLite »

storystarling wrote: post #83
kgeist wrote: post #2

>The hardest part about this project was actually just parsing. How about using sqlite for this? Then you wouldn't need to parse anything, just read/update tables. Fast indexing out of the box, too.

SQLite solves the storage layer but I suspect you run into a pretty big impedance mismatch on the graph traversals. For heavy DAG operations like history rewriting, a custom structure seems way more efficient than trying to model that relationally.

The Common Table Expression feature of SQL is very good at walking graphs. See, for example https://sqlite.org/lang_with.html#queries_against_a_graph>.
Post reply on HN