Git

2910 readers

1 users here now

Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.

Resources

Rules

Follow programming.dev rules
Be excellent to each other, no hostility towards users for any reason
No spam of tools/companies/advertisements. It’s OK to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be self-promotion.

Git Logo by Jason Long is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ategon

canpolat

jnovinger

A Git story: Not so fun this time (blog.brachiosoft.com)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by canpolat to c/git

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Mikina 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)

What will be the next to replace Git? Many say it might be related to AI, but no one can say for sure.

Now here is a sentence that would make me immediately stop reading the article. Thankfully it is at the end, since it was a great and interesting read.

But now I wonder, the article does mention that Git has some core design problems. Are there any new emerging VCSs that iterate on the idea and are better (or faster, or have an unique idea about how to handle stuff), or is version control basically a solved problem with Git?

[–] FizzyOrange 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

Pijul: patch-based like Darcs but apparently solves its performance issues. In theory this improves conflict resolution.
Jujutsu: kind of an alternative front-end to a git repo (but not a front-end to git). Has some different ideas, like no staging area (draft commit), and some other stuff I can't remember.
Sapling: from Facebook. Unfortunately only part of it is available. The server is not public yet (I guess it's tired up in Facebook infrastructure too much).

And it's definitely not a solved problem. Aside from the obvious UX disaster, Git has some big issues:

Monorepo support is relatively poor, especially on Mac and Linux.
Submodule support is extremely buggy and has particularly bad UX even for Git.
Support for large files via LFS is tacked on and half-arsed.
Conflict resolution is very very dumb. I think there are third party efforts to improve this.

I think the biggest issue is dealing with very large code bases, like the code for a mid-large size company. You either go with a monorepo and deal with slowness, Windows-only optimisations and bare minimum partial checkout support.

Or you go with submodules and then you have even bigger problems. Honestly I'm not sure there's really an answer for this with Git currently.

It's not hard to imagine how this might work better. For instance if Git repos were relocatable, so trees were relative to some directory, then submodules could be added to a repo natively just by adding the commits and specifying the relative location. (Git subtree almost does this but again it's a tacked on third party solution which doesn't integrate well, like LFS.)

[–] jnareb 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think the biggest issue is dealing with very large code bases, like the code for a mid-large size company. You either go with a monorepo and deal with slowness, Windows-only optimizations and bare minimum partial checkout support.

Or you go with submodules and then you have even bigger problems. Honestly I’m not sure there’s really an answer for this with Git currently.

The partial checkout support in Git is getting improved. Take a look, maybe it now solves your problems.

Support for large repositories via scalar works also for Linux (though not everything is ported; as main body of work on supporting large repositories was created to deal with the size of MS Windows repository, it started with Windows-only support / optimization first).