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

Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

lore.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 717 posts

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#601

Post by FabHK »

isodev wrote: post #430
danudey wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have said, it's Apple and they do not take kindly to other people leaking their technology/announcements ahead of time. See also: the time that ATI's CEO told his employees that their chips would be powering Apple's to-be-announced hardware a few days before the announcement. Steve Jobs responded by pulling all of ATI's hardware from its demo units at the announcement, not mentioning ATI at all, cancelling…

It’s funny how exciting Apple Pay was when introduced, only Apple pulled the lock-everyone-in card and now we’re all using QRcodes.

I'm in HK, most HKers use ApplePay with NFC, and don't use QR codes. Over in mainland China, however, it's all QR codes (with AliPay, WePay).

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#602

Post by FabHK »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #508
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the many points of git's design is that most of the steps you need to do in P4 are not necessary at all. You do not "lock assets", you do not "release them", there is no "merging into streams" equivalent. The entire workflow with git avoids huge amounts of the cognitive load of using P4, which in turn means that integration with IDEs becomes much less important. I worked with P4 around the time I first started…

> You do not "lock assets", Uhhhhhh. Locking binary assets is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in Git. Except Git can't actually do that. So what locking binary assets Git looks like in practice is an unenforced message in Slack saying "hey I'm changing this file please no one else touch it". Git's design provides zero value and zero affordances for solving the very very real problem of unmergable binary assets. > there is no "m…

> But I can also teach a game designer or artist who has never heard of source control how to correctly and safely use P4 in about 15 minutes. Meanwhile you can tell Git is badly designed because there are 10,000+ tutorials explaining how easy it is! Spoiler: things that are actually easy do not need 10,000 tutorials telling you that it is easy.

100% and LOL. Sometimes I wonder where we'd be if Mercurial (hg) had won that contest.

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#603

Post by dansmith1919 »

1718627440 wrote: post #513
dansmith1919 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that if it's useless information for 99.9% of users, what's it doing in the UI?

A percentage information for a network upload is very much not useless information. In fact making the user wait without any indication of progress is very bad UX.

I feel like you’re either misunderstanding the entire thread or being obtuse on purpose.

The point is that “Delta compression using up to 10 threads” means nothing to most users - it’s also not a progress thing. Hide it unless the user does -v or something.

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#604

Post by dansmith1919 »

j_w wrote: post #444
dansmith1919 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has bothered me ever since I was using git for the first time: what do you mean I have to 'add' and 'commit' and then 'push'? I just want to save my stuff, this is SO many steps.

These criticisms of git always seems so shallow to me. 'add' tells git to start tracking some file(s) 'commit' tells git to save the currently tracked files 'push' says "upload my changes to some other location." Git isn't dropbox magically 'rsync'ing the directory to some server. 'pull' says "download any changes from some other location." Same deal as push. That should satisfy the majority of git casuals that get f…

I hate the word mansplaining but this comment could go into the dictionary as an example.

The point was that this bothered me when I used git for the very first time (what is it like 15 years ago at this point) and indeed did not understand it yet. Hope your comment made you feel better about yourself at least.

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#605

Post by dansmith1919 »

abustamam wrote: post #412
dansmith1919 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has bothered me ever since I was using git for the first time: what do you mean I have to 'add' and 'commit' and then 'push'? I just want to save my stuff, this is SO many steps.

When I was getting started with programming I often forgot to do one of those steps and often ended up losing my work because I was working from a library computer or something. When I got more experience I finally understood why it is like that, and it makes sense now, but its still a lot of steps for someone learning to remember.

Thanks, that’s exactly what I meant! It only makes sense now because we know exactly how it works, it makes no sense to a first-time user.

I feel like other commenters are being obtuse on purpose and avoid the point? Or did I just not word it correctly

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#606

Post by shaan7 »

dansmith1919 wrote: post #604
j_w wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These criticisms of git always seems so shallow to me. 'add' tells git to start tracking some file(s) 'commit' tells git to save the currently tracked files 'push' says "upload my changes to some other location." Git isn't dropbox magically 'rsync'ing the directory to some server. 'pull' says "download any changes from some other location." Same deal as push. That should satisfy the majority of git casuals that get f…

I hate the word mansplaining but this comment could go into the dictionary as an example. The point was that this bothered me when I used git for the very first time (what is it like 15 years ago at this point) and indeed did not understand it yet. Hope your comment made you feel better about yourself at least.

> The point was that this bothered me when I used git for the very first time

and that is fine. From your original comment, you "just" wanted to save things and got confused why you had to `add`, `commit` and `push`. Its just that you didn't know that git isn't a word processor that gives you a way to save your work - you've done that already when you saved the file with your editor.

When I came to git, I was also confused why commit and push are different steps - so much work, I thought. Until one day it finally hit - wait, this lets me keep "saving" my work locally until I'm ready to upload it - which is when I push.

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#607

Post by gritzko »

InitialLastName wrote: post #451
packetlost wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like submodules could be a lot easier to work with if the git command made it easy to update all submodules in one go based on branch head for the submodule.

That and a way to recursively commit/push (i.e. make a change within a submodule, commit in one step with the same message in the parent submodule). Right now, if you want to push a change to a file in a submodule such that it propagates to the users of your repo, you have to: 1. Change the file 2. Commit within the submodule 3. Push the submodule 4. add the submodule change in the outer repo 5. commit in the outer r…

In the Beagle SCM, I am doing my best to simplify that flow, but that is only doable because Beagle has multi-project repos. Still, there are some difficulties with submodule recursion. In the git model, difficult to imagine this working smoothly.

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#608

Post by somenameforme »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #309
somenameforme wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not also possible that there are an overwhelming number of problems with the big AAA type studios in games right now? I feel right now we're in sort of tale of two cities, because AAA games have turned into barely functioning uninspired parasitically monetized crap, while smaller scale development is in an absolute golden age. And it's likely that LLMs will only add fuel onto this turd burning fire.

In fairness, AAA games are practically over. They have grown too bloated, take too long to develop, and, with the culture wars raging in the background, almost every AAA game steps on at least one landmine and loses a large fraction of its audience before it is even released. Sad, really.

I don't think saying they stepped on landmines is entirely accurate. They jumped into the culture wars headfirst, and simply landed on concrete, as is the typical outcome. Why they chose to do that is an interesting question though, because if they just asked basically any 'normal' person the impact it would have on their sales - the answers would not be ambiguous.

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#609

Post by shaan7 »

dansmith1919 wrote: post #605
abustamam wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was getting started with programming I often forgot to do one of those steps and often ended up losing my work because I was working from a library computer or something. When I got more experience I finally understood why it is like that, and it makes sense now, but its still a lot of steps for someone learning to remember.

Thanks, that’s exactly what I meant! It only makes sense now because we know exactly how it works, it makes no sense to a first-time user. I feel like other commenters are being obtuse on purpose and avoid the point? Or did I just not word it correctly

> I feel like other commenters are being obtuse on purpose and avoid the point?

nah, people are just built differently. Not everyone gets frustrated with "learning to remember", and then some do. Both are valid. The people who seem to be obtuse to you are in the first group, myself included. I didn't instantly catch the fact that instead of `svn commit` I have to now do `git add`, `git commit` and `git push`. But, and this is the key difference, when I forgot I just checked my bash history to recall the sequence. It doesn't bother me because I know either of two things will happen:

A. Over months and years, you then understand how things work and its second nature.

OR B. The tool was just a one-off and you won't use it after some time, so it doesn't matter you won't recall the steps.

Its the same with any professional tool, really - even outside software (think carpentry, for example).

Re: Lore – Open source version control system designed for scalability

#610

Post by Hendrikto »

kazinator wrote: post #577
ifh-hn wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a bit of a dick...

I believe that the action does reflect Jobs' ego in the following way. Namely, his belief that CEO == company. Jobs would never take the view that the action of the CEO of ATI is actually one bad actor acting alone which doesn't represent what ATI wants as an organization, and is unfair and damaging to that organization and all of its employees. The reason he would not take that view is because then he would not be a…

Ultimately, it is the CEO who has to take responsibility. They are the chief executive officer, after all. And they are well compensated for it.
Post reply on HN