3 ms·
While I think the libgit2 initiative is fantastic, I don't think there needs to be just one Git implementation. One of my favourite things about git is that th
by shazow 11y ago
While I think the libgit2 initiative is fantastic, I don't think there needs to be just one Git implementation.
One of my favourite things about git is that the underlying storage and protocol is really simple and straight-forward to implement. You could do a lot of it in shell scripts, if you wanted to.
The stateless storage is simple and consistent, but the thing that does vary is the various operating algorithms: diff, merge, garbage collection, etc.
This creates a really interesting ecosystem where you could potentially have third-party tools that have some secret sauce producing more efficient diffs or fewer conflicting merges but still base it entirely on the open git ecosystem and remain completely backwards-compatible with all the other tooling.
- s73v3r 11y agoNo matter how simple and straight-forward it is, someone is going to fuck it up. And they're going to do so in a way that isn't immediately detectable, but screws the rest of the company because now they have to support something using the screwed up implementation.
- simoncion 11y agoGit has a bunch of tests [0]. I expect that not all of them are git-the-official-CLI-specific. > And they're going to do so in a way that isn't immediately detectable, but screws the rest of the company because now they have to support something using the screwed up implementation. eeeeeeeeeh. Sensible companies will figure out how to massage the broken data into the correct form, then go on using the correct software. [0] https://github.com/git/git/tree/master/t https://github.com/git/git/tree/master/t