3 ms·

I can't tell what this actually is. Is it like git with syncthing?

• DJBunnies 4y ago
  I can’t tell what the use case is, or how it varies from git/git push.
  • ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    > Regardless whether you're using small text files or huge binary files, Darke Files handles them all. That is interesting to game developers and creatives (like movie EFX folks). They can have huge assets, and Git is pretty terrible at large binaries. That's why Perforce is still popular in the gaming industry. It handles big files, very well.
    • throwaway290 4y ago
      Does Git LFS have issues?
      • hammyhavoc 4y ago
        LFS can have issues, e.g., if using HTTPS alongside SSH is going to be a problem. It's also not a part of the core git project, but neither of these things may matter to you. There's other caveats, but they go with the territory of the benefits gained from LFS. For me, it works fine in Gitea, and I do audio and music for games. Are there more appropriate solutions like Perforce? Probably, but the current pipeline is git-based.
        • throwaway290 4y ago
          Thanks, interesting to hear a perspective of someone who versions media in Git. Also going to check out your music!
      • remram 4y ago
        Git LFS is very slow for lots of files. It is also inefficient space-wise and bandwidth-wise if you update big files. The integration with Git is also very clunky since it's based on smudge/clean filters (that were really meant to update templates in your text files or change line endings, not download big files). The server options are also limited and not easy to deploy. Not a problem if you use a central repository on the cloud, but a non-starter if you want direct sync between devices.
        • throwaway290 4y ago
          Where is the inefficiency, Git LFS spec or some particular server? I think space is not a spec issue at all, an LFS server can use any deduplicating storage under the hood The part where filters are used is not elegant, porcelain for LFS could be better.
          • unshavedyak 4y ago
            For me it's just that Git LFS defaults to a server. I'm rewriting it largely because i loathe Git-LFS needing to hit some HTTP server. Running one locally because they defaulted to a Github Webserver mindset frustrates me.
            • throwaway290 4y ago
              Personally if files are large I prefer to store all of them and the entire history of their changes somewhere else, so a server makes sense to me...
              • unshavedyak 4y ago
                Yea, i just don't want to be forced to. Ie to me storing them in another folder, a network filesystem, some SSH filesystem, a dumb KV store like S3, etc are all viable storage locations to it. So that's what i'm writing because i'm just picky, i guess heh.
                • 4y ago
  • Fnoord 4y ago
    Either way, its not ready for production. FTA: > Can I start using this right now? > Darke Files is still alpha software so please don't use it in production. Additionally Darke Files is missing many missing many features one might expect from a version control system (or a software forge, or a devops platform). Keep good backups of your data if you decide to try it out.
• brabel 4y ago
  The explanation on the website seems perfectly good. It's a system that can go from something like DropBox (automatic sync of files with a cloud) to Git (version history, commits, manual pull/push, conflict resolution). I don't know for sure, but it seems you configure which features you want to activate during setup. Does this help?
  • abec_ 4y ago
    Dev here. There actually aren't any features to activate, the goal of Darke Files is that different users of the same repository can work at different ends of this sync <-> version control spectrum.