3 ms·

We have database-backed storage backends for Jujutsu at Google. There's no Git involved there. So I think it's wrong to say that it's a wrapper for Git. Even w

We have database-backed storage backends for Jujutsu at Google. There's no Git involved there. So I think it's wrong to say that it's a wrapper for Git. Even when using the Git backend, it's only commits and lower-level objects that are stored in the Git repo, and even some parts of the commits are stored outside Git (e g. the change ID). The operation log (which powers the undo feature) is also not stored in Git.

adastra22 2y ago
Ok that's pretty awesome. But by git backed I meant the data structure. Darcs & pijul shows that we can do better than a commit tree.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  Do they? They're different and theoretically better in some respects, but are they better in ways that matter and truly deliver value to users? Commutativity of patches is neat, but it's just not that big a deal. I think Pijul's best feature is first-class conflicts, an idea that Jujutsu has also incorporated.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    It matters a lot when maintaining long lived forks of active upstream projects, especially with invasive changes that get tripped up on rebases.
    - sunshowers 2y ago
      That seems like an algorithm issue more than a fundamental data structure issue, right?
      - adastra22 2y ago
        Patch commutivity would make rebasing vs. merge commits effectively the same thing. That’s where it impacts the data structure.
        sunshowers 2y ago
        From the perspective of lawyers who come knocking, it seems incorrect to treat rebases and merges as the same.