Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

Post by haberman » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 1:34 AM UTC

mooman219 wrote: post #227

jeremyepling wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a Microsoft employee on the Git team. We do have a distributed, caching, incremental build system and a distributed test system. Right now, they're completely internal - like Google. They're called CloudBuild and CloudTest. They're very fast and no one thinks twice about kicking off a build.

Google employs a distributed, caching, incremental build system and a distributed test system across the majority of their code base. I worked in Windows Store and I can assure you that most people there don't use CloudBuild and CloudTest, let along know what they are. I would be confident in saying the majority of people at Microsoft are in that boat.

Post by sdesol » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 1:48 AM UTC

manojlds wrote: post #120

Ericson2314 wrote: post #76

If I understand this correctly, unlike git-annex and git lfs, this not about extending the git format with special large files, but changing the algorithm for the current data format. A custom filesystem is indeed the correct approach, and one that git itself should have probably supported long ago. In fact, there should really only be one "repo" per machine, name-spaced branches, and multiple mountpoints a la `git w…

The blog post does mention that some changes have been made to git (in their fork)

Post by EdHominem » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 2:30 AM UTC

stinos wrote: post #180

chokolad wrote: post #106

There is a discussion thread on r/programming, where MS folks, who implemented this answer questions. A lot of questions like why not use multiple repos, why not git-lfs, why not git subtree, etc. are answered there https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/5rtlk0/git_vir...

Thanks for bringing this up, it was actually a more interesting read than this thread. Less trolling, more facts and also interesting to read stuff I didn't happen to know. Like One of the core differences between Windows and Linux is process creation. It's slower - relatively - on Windows. Since Git is largely implemented as many Bash scripts that run as separate processes, the performance is slower on Windows. We’r…

Post by krallja » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 3:38 AM UTC

durin42 wrote: post #83

janwh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. Durham Goode (Tech Lead on Source Control at Facebook) just held a talk at Git-Merge about how they scaled Mercurial at Fb. They seem to be quite happy with it, albeit applying quite a few restrictions on their internal users that are not really transferable to the general (outside-corporate) usage of VCS (for example only rebases are allowed, directly committing to master all the time, etc.)

That's actually pretty comparable to how we tend to operate the Mercurial project, FYI. We tend to prefer rebase to merge for feature work.

Post by krallja » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 3:45 AM UTC

imron wrote: post #31

> repos of unusual size Sounds like they've almost solved the secrets of the fire swamp!