> Git should work the way we think it does! I think it works using snapshots... or are you saying that Git should work the way that you think it does, and not

> Git should work the way we think it does! I think it works using snapshots... or are you saying that Git should work the way that you think it does, and not how I think it does? It's clear that Git is not the final evolution of version control systems, that we are just currently in the "Git era" and at some point we're going to be in the "post-Git era" of VCS. It's unclear what that looks like, but I am skeptical when I hear these claims about Pijul. > One can share just a patch, and applying it is guaranteed to be the same action everywhere if that's possible, which it often is. My understanding is that you need to define a very weak version of "same version everywhere" which is useless. With Git, you can merge and get no conflicts, but that is no guarantee that the patch applied successfully... it just means that the merge operation didn't run into any obstacles. It's not just the patch that needs to be vetted by humans, it's the state which must also be vetted, and that's one of the problems that Git solves well.