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

Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

sqlite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 454 posts

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#201

Post by herewulf »

taneq wrote: post #119
maxxk wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> git, for all its issues, is not bundling the kitchen sink. It doesn't bundle the kitchen sink in its native *nix environment, but for Windows it does. Git installer is > 50 MB, including (if I remember correctly) even a terminal. While you can download Fossil as a 3.3 MB standalone binary for any supported platform.

"You're using Windows so you obviously want an entire mini-Cygwin type environment for your source control software"

Actually I do to save me from the deprived interfaces the OS ships with.

The Git install is one of the best Cygwin-likes I've encountered. It has the majority of tools needed and reasonable integration with the host OS. Very nice for getting something done quickly on any random Windows box.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#202

Post by lelanthran »

kstrauser wrote: post #62
hprotagonist wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The D is DVCS is a waste of effort. until the de facto centralized remote goes offline and you’re stuck with no local history …

Or on a plane. It’s nice to have 100% of its functionality when you have 0% of your usual connectivity. Branches, commits, merges, all from the local file system? Yes, please. There’s a reason we moved off centralized VCS en masse.

> Or on a plane. It’s nice to have 100% of its functionality when you have 0% of your usual connectivity. Branches, commits, merges, all from the local file system? Yes, please.

You don't need the VCS to be a distributed VCS to have offline capability.

> There’s a reason we moved off centralized VCS en masse.

No, there's a reason we moved to git specifically. We didn't move to the competing DVCS, did we?

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#203

Post by alpaca128 »

jayski wrote: post #37
ohthatsnotright wrote: post #21

I'm glad Fossil works for them, but this line is bothered me: > In contrast, Fossil is a single standalone binary which is installed by putting it on $PATH. That one binary contains all the functionality of core Git and also GitHub and/or GitLab. It manages a community server with wiki, bug tracking, and forums, provides packaged downloads for consumers, login managements, and so forth, with no extra software require…

I think SQLite is fantastic and Richard is obviously a genius. But I always found his obsession with single binary monoliths odd. As you mentioned it goes against the Unix philosophy of do one thing and do it well. To me it's obviously cleaner to divide a system into components that can later be swapped or modified independently.

> To me it's obviously cleaner to divide a system into components that can later be swapped or modified independently.

But where do you draw the line? What's "one thing"? - The size and complexity between cli tools doing one thing varies by orders of magnitude, some of those programs are much larger than this Fossil "monolith". Should a component have more functionality if separation means 10 times slower performance? What if it has hundreds of such features? What if separating those features means a hundredfold increase in complexity for setting up the software as it now has distributed dependencies? Should you have a separate audio player when a video player could already do the job out of necessity? Should a terminal support scrolling if you can already get that via tmux?

The Unix philosophy is bad for judging individual programs.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#205

Post by SubjectToChange »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #169

I am not a Git fan. The most perplexing to me is how huge companies spend 100.000s (1.000.000s??) of $$ to hack Git so that it will git with their needs. Like Google. One of the biggest issues seem to be the size of the repo, which takes days (?) to download and get started. Does Google contribute all their extra services / tools to make Git for work for then?

Microsoft is a better example with git vfs and now Scalar.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#206

Post by herewulf »

8organicbits wrote: post #31
xrd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm using git to manage my blog. I wrote an Android editor to edit on GitHub and then modified it to work on gitlab. There are lots of reasons but mostly it is because git is impossible to use on mobile, regardless of whether you are using GitHub or gitlab. Checking status is possible but barely anything beyond that. This write-up really resonated with me in other ways. I wrote a book for O'Reilly about GitHub…

I wonder how far you could get with the git client in termux. I got vim running at one point. [1] https://termux.dev/ [2] https://packages.termux.dev/apt/termux-main/pool/main/g/git/

I use git in Termux all the time. It's fine. You just enter commands like normal. I have no idea what the parent to your comment is on about, especially having "written a book".

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#207

Post by alophawen »

kaba0 wrote: post #180
backendanon wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git...is difficult to install? What's difficult about apt-get install git?

For what it’s worth, on windows without wsl you literally have to bring half of a whole unix with you to run git.

Not really.

https://gitforwindows.org/

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#208

Post by brigandish »

jpeeler wrote: post #113
kasperset wrote: post #106

I saw this video few days ago which describes some of the alternative to Git and of course Fossil is one of them. I have used Fossil in some projects and found to be ok. I found Pijul https://pijul.org/ described in this talk to be very interesting. It was discussed on HN before. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4KktA_jbOE

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one, but jj is interesting: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

I’ve used jj on a couple of small personal projects and it was fine, but I needed to get my head out of “git mode”. The lead developer is very helpful.

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#209

Post by lifeisstillgood »

I tried fossil a while back mostly because of the idea of tracking tickets in the SCM.

I have come to understand tickets are almost a means of communicating outside of the SCM and with software illiterates it's hard to get them to use any SCM.

The thing I want most to replicate in git is "technotes" - I can get partway there with tagging and a "notes" directory but there is a lot more road to go down

Re: Why SQLite does not use Git (2018)

#210

Post by anon35 »

Made a list of all the revision control tools I've used over the decades, the year they were created, and the year I last used them:

    sccs            1973    2000
    rcs             1982    2000
    cvs             1990    2004
    clearcase       1992    2004
    perforce        1995    2011
    subversion      2000    2015
    mercurial       2005    2015
    git             2005    present
So, at least for me, they last around 15 years or so.

But often time when I tell juinors that when they're my age, git will be distant a strange memory to them, they look at me funny. It's a wonderful tool and earned its success, but I'll be sad if it's our final take on the problem.

Post reply on HN