4 ms·

Pijul looks very interesting but unfortunately as it stands (and without a huge open source project à la Linux to back it) I can't really imagine it taking over

by simias 8y ago

Pijul looks very interesting but unfortunately as it stands (and without a huge open source project à la Linux to back it) I can't really imagine it taking over git as it stands. It might be better than git but is it enough an improvement to justify the cost of switching? I'm not sure. Now if pijul takes inspiration from Fossil and implements things like issue tracking as part of the DCVS then that would be an other story as far as I'm concerned. That would be a pretty radical upgrade from git.

ATsch 8y ago
My hope is that what will happen is that git sees what Pijul does and integrates some of it's innovations and copies them. I don't know how feasible this is though, technically.
- kasabali 8y ago
  That's not gonna happen. Pijul's innovations originated in SCMs much older than git, and Torvalds evaluated all those SCMs before deciding to create git, so he was well aware of those ideas. If it didn't happened in the beginning I doubt it'll happen in the future.
knocte 8y ago
> Pijul looks very interesting but unfortunately as it stands (and without a huge open source project à la Linux to back it) I can't really imagine it taking over git as it stands. It might be better than git but is it enough an improvement to justify the cost of switching? I'm not sure. Nailed it. And you could argue in an analogous way about all the cryptocurrencies that try to be "better" than bitcoin/ethereum (offtopic I know).
epicide 8y ago
> is it enough an improvement to justify the cost of switching? This is the main question everybody should be asking about potential contenders [0]. For most places, switching would be a huge undertaking. Even if there's an import tool that works flawlessly (big assumption), you now have to potentially re-think all of your secondary tooling [1]. Not just 3rd party tools, either. You have to think about potentially tweaking build pipelines, etc. Not to mention (re)training people which is very likely orders of magnitude more costly [2]. For any potential tool to overtake git, it will have to provide some pretty extreme benefits. Git originally provided some pretty extreme benefits over SVN and yet there are plenty of places that still can't justify the cost of even making that switch. [0]: I'm only talking about contenders for large projects and/or business' ecosystems. Use whatever you want on your side projects. [1]: GitLab adding support for alternatives is a good way to start mitigating this. [2]: In more ways than just purely financial.
- davemp 8y ago
  Heck there are places that use ClearCase still. Companies that are at rest tend to stay at rest.
erlend_sh 8y ago
As far as code is concerned I fully agree. But DVCS tools have a much broader utility for content sharing (documentation, teacher's resources, screenplays etc.) that we've only just begun to explore.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by simias 8y ago

ATsch 8y ago

My hope is that what will happen is that git sees what Pijul does and integrates some of it's innovations and copies them. I don't know how feasible this is though, technically.

kasabali 8y ago
That's not gonna happen. Pijul's innovations originated in SCMs much older than git, and Torvalds evaluated all those SCMs before deciding to create git, so he was well aware of those ideas. If it didn't happened in the beginning I doubt it'll happen in the future.

knocte 8y ago

> Pijul looks very interesting but unfortunately as it stands (and without a huge open source project à la Linux to back it) I can't really imagine it taking over git as it stands. It might be better than git but is it enough an improvement to justify the cost of switching? I'm not sure. Nailed it. And you could argue in an analogous way about all the cryptocurrencies that try to be "better" than bitcoin/ethereum (offtopic I know).

epicide 8y ago

> is it enough an improvement to justify the cost of switching? This is the main question everybody should be asking about potential contenders [0]. For most places, switching would be a huge undertaking. Even if there's an import tool that works flawlessly (big assumption), you now have to potentially re-think all of your secondary tooling [1]. Not just 3rd party tools, either. You have to think about potentially tweaking build pipelines, etc. Not to mention (re)training people which is very likely orders of magnitude more costly [2]. For any potential tool to overtake git, it will have to provide some pretty extreme benefits. Git originally provided some pretty extreme benefits over SVN and yet there are plenty of places that still can't justify the cost of even making that switch. [0]: I'm only talking about contenders for large projects and/or business' ecosystems. Use whatever you want on your side projects. [1]: GitLab adding support for alternatives is a good way to start mitigating this. [2]: In more ways than just purely financial.

davemp 8y ago
Heck there are places that use ClearCase still. Companies that are at rest tend to stay at rest.

erlend_sh 8y ago

As far as code is concerned I fully agree. But DVCS tools have a much broader utility for content sharing (documentation, teacher's resources, screenplays etc.) that we've only just begun to explore.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]