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

Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 287 posts

Re: Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

#51

Post by nine_k »

anon987 wrote: post #34
kentt wrote: post #22

It's disappointing that all the comments are so negative. This is a great idea and solves a real problem for a lot of use cases. I remembering years ago Facebook says it had this problem. A lot of the comments were centered around that you could change your codebase to for what git can do. I'm glad there's another option now.

It's because the 'problem' it solves is a corner case that's rarely encountered. I love their absurd examples of repos that take 12 hours to download. How many people have that problem, really? All they did is create a caching layer.

If you deal with code, the case is marginal for you.

If you deal with graphics, audio assets, etc, the binary-blob type of data, the case is central.

Re: Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

#54

Post by becarefulyo »

rethab wrote: post #37

Assuming that the repo was this big in the beginning, I wonder why the ever migrated to git (I'm assuming they did, because they can tell how long it takes to checkout). At least when somebody "tries" do the migration, wouldn't they realize that maybe git is not the right tool for them? Or did they actually migrate and then work with "git status" that take 10 minutes for some time until they realize they may need to…

Because of the productivity benefits of using public tools instead of internal ones. Devs are more familiar with them, more documentation and examples, morale benefit because skills are transferable to other jobs, etc.

Re: Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

#55

Post by cies »

gvb wrote: post #42

Using git with large repos and large (binary blob) files has been a pain point for quite a while. There have been several attempts to solve the problem, none of which have really taken off. I think all the attempts have been (too) proprietary – without wide support, it doesn’t get adopted. I'll be watching this to see if Microsoft can break the logjam. By open sourcing the client and protocol, there is potential... O…

I think Joey Hess' attempt at "solving the problem" deserves a mention.

It is open source (GPLV3) licensed. [not proprietary]

Written in Haskell. [cool aid]

Currently has 1200+ stars on Github and is part of at least Ubuntu (http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=git-annex) since 12.04. [shows something for support and adoption]

edit: Link to Github https://github.com/joeyh/git-annex -- thanks dgellow

Re: Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

#56

Post by dgellow »

cies wrote: post #55
gvb wrote: post #42

Using git with large repos and large (binary blob) files has been a pain point for quite a while. There have been several attempts to solve the problem, none of which have really taken off. I think all the attempts have been (too) proprietary – without wide support, it doesn’t get adopted. I'll be watching this to see if Microsoft can break the logjam. By open sourcing the client and protocol, there is potential... O…

I think Joey Hess' attempt at "solving the problem" deserves a mention. It is open source (GPLV3) licensed. [not proprietary] Written in Haskell. [cool aid] Currently has 1200+ stars on Github and is part of at least Ubuntu ( http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=git-annex ) since 12.04. [shows something for support and adoption] edit: Link to Github https://github.com/joeyh/git-annex -- thanks dgellow

Link to the github mirror https://github.com/joeyh/git-annex

Re: Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

#57

Post by sebastos »

anon987 wrote: post #34
kentt wrote: post #22

It's disappointing that all the comments are so negative. This is a great idea and solves a real problem for a lot of use cases. I remembering years ago Facebook says it had this problem. A lot of the comments were centered around that you could change your codebase to for what git can do. I'm glad there's another option now.

It's because the 'problem' it solves is a corner case that's rarely encountered. I love their absurd examples of repos that take 12 hours to download. How many people have that problem, really? All they did is create a caching layer.

"I don't have this problem, so nobody does."

Lacking support for large binary blobs is, like, THE #1 reason that an engineer might have to use an alternative.

Re: Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

#58

Post by ksec »

Interesting M$ is moving to Git and the rest of the world is pretty much Github & alternatives while Facebook and Google are going with Mercurial. I actually liked Mercurial apart from its name being little hard to pronounce, but it doesn't seems to get used anywhere.

So are the DVCS converging to Git and Git only?

Re: Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

#59

Post by UK-AL »

vtbassmatt wrote: post #36
daigoba66 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFS has first-class support for Git repositories (in addition to the classic TFSVC repositories). So yes, they're moving more and more to Git. But no, they're not abandoning TFS. Interestingly, however, most of their "open source" efforts (.NET, C#, and related) are all on GitHub rather than their own hosted offerings: CodePlex (which is basically dead) or "Visual Studio Team Services".

Not sure why Visual Studio Team Services is in scare quotes -- that's the product's name. And it's not an open source hosting service, which handily explains why Microsoft's open source isn't hosted there. Disclosure: I'm a PM on VSTS/TFS, and I own part of version control.

Just to say, I'm really liking modern VSTS.

Re: Announcing GVFS: Git Virtual File System

#60

Post by durin42 »

kyrra wrote: post #49
mox1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they did. They choose to scale out Mecurial to solve their problem. Wonder if they still use Mercurial? https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-merc...

Both Facebook and Google are continuing to contribute to Mercurial, so they both have some vested interest in it. If you poke around the commits on the repo[0] you'll see commits from people with @fb.com and @google.com email addresses. The mailing lists also has activity from both companies still. As well, the Mercurial team does quarterly sprints (I believe), and Google is hosting the next one[1]. [0] https://www.m…

Sprints are twice a year, once in the US and once in Europe.
Post reply on HN