2 ms·

> Something being autogenerated, or binary, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in version control. I think the SHA should be in version control. The file should be r

> Something being autogenerated, or binary, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in version control. I think the SHA should be in version control. The file should be reproducibly built [1], then cached on a central server. This means that a build target like a system image could be satisfied by downloading the complete image and no intermediate files. And a change to one file in one binary will result in only a small number of intermediate files being downloaded or reproducibly built to chain up to the new system image. This is something that's really lacking in, for example, Git. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds

maccard 3y ago
> I think the SHA should be in version control. The file should be reproducibly built [1], then cached on a central server. Requiring reproducible builds to handle translations or images is a bit much. Also, if it's cached on a central server, that now means you need to be connected to that central server. If you require a connection to said central server, why not just have your source code on said server in the first place, a la p4? I do agree that NixOS is a great idea, but personally 99% of my problems would be solved if git scaled properly.
- avidiax 3y ago
  You can always build from source in this scenario. The cache server lets you skip two things. First, you can prune the leaves of the tree of intermediate files you might need. Second, where you do need to compile/build/link/package, etc., you can do only those steps that are altered by your changes. So you save CPU time and storage space. > why not just have your source code on said server in the first place, a la p4? That would be great. A version of git where cloning is almost a no-op, and building is downloading the package assuming you haven't changed anything. I'm not aware of how p4 allowing this. My recollection of perforce is that I still had most source files locally.
jtsiskin 3y ago
https://git-lfs.com/ https://git-lfs.com/

maccard 3y ago

> I think the SHA should be in version control. The file should be reproducibly built [1], then cached on a central server. Requiring reproducible builds to handle translations or images is a bit much. Also, if it's cached on a central server, that now means you need to be connected to that central server. If you require a connection to said central server, why not just have your source code on said server in the first place, a la p4? I do agree that NixOS is a great idea, but personally 99% of my problems would be solved if git scaled properly.

avidiax 3y ago
You can always build from source in this scenario. The cache server lets you skip two things. First, you can prune the leaves of the tree of intermediate files you might need. Second, where you do need to compile/build/link/package, etc., you can do only those steps that are altered by your changes. So you save CPU time and storage space. > why not just have your source code on said server in the first place, a la p4? That would be great. A version of git where cloning is almost a no-op, and building is downloading the package assuming you haven't changed anything. I'm not aware of how p4 allowing this. My recollection of perforce is that I still had most source files locally.

jtsiskin 3y ago

https://git-lfs.com/ https://git-lfs.com/