4 ms·
I personally feel that: 1) Git is fine 2) I would not want to replace critical open source tooling with something backed by investor capital from its inceptio
by tmountain 6mo ago
I personally feel that:
1) Git is fine
2) I would not want to replace critical open source tooling with something backed by investor capital from its inception.
Sure, it will be “open source “, but with people throwing money behind it, there’s a plan to extract value from the user base from day one.
I’m tired of being “the product”.
Critical open source tooltips by should spring from the community, not from corporate sponsorship.
- IshKebab 6mo agoGit is fine. I would like something better than fine though, especially for dealing with rebase/merge conflicts where I would say Git is mediocre.
- a-french-anon 6mo agoWell, yeah, but Git is basically UNIX/POSIX or JPEG. Good enough to always win against better like Plan 9 or JPEG XL (though I think this one may win in the long term).
- k4rli 6mo agoWhat about a vibecoded replacement with emojis and javascript? Surely $trillion "ai" thing can generate a better solution than one Finnish guy 20 years ago.
- weedhopper 6mo agoRust! it’s written in rust and not javascript!!!!
- dare944 6mo agoLol. Unfortunately VCs and ever-so-ernest founders are impervious to irony. Best to just let them get their grift on and just be happy it isn't your money they're boondoggling.
- theappsecguy 6mo agoI would urge you to take a look at the founding team here, I doubt that they vibe coded this tool.
- hk__2 6mo ago> Git is fine. I would like something better than fine though, especially for dealing with rebase/merge conflicts where I would say Git is mediocre. You can define your own merge strategy that uses a custom executable to fix conflicts. https://stackoverflow.com/a/24965574/735926 https://stackoverflow.com/a/24965574/735926
- DonThomasitos 6mo ago„Claude, merge these branches and resolve conflicts. Ask me if unclear.“ 16M$ VC money saved.
- user34283 6mo agoSo far I have not let AI work with git, because I preferred handling version control myself. Does it work well for resolving merge conflicts in your experience?
- speedgoose 6mo agoNot the person you responded too, but in my experience the answer is a big yes.
- hrimfaxi 6mo agoIn my experience, yes. It has done a great job of choosing which changes should be integrated based on context in the repo, too.
- IshKebab 6mo agoI'm sure that will go well for my formal model in a language that about 100 people use...
- _fizz_buzz_ 6mo agoIf only 100 people in the world are using this language, who are you even merging code with, lol.
- IshKebab 6mo agoSome of the other people?
- skydhash 6mo ago> especially for dealing with rebase/merge conflicts where I would say Git is mediocre. It seems like everyone that hold this opinion want Git to be some magical tool that will guess their intent and automatically resolve the conflict. The only solutions other than surfacing the conflict are locking (transactions) or using some consensus algorithm (maybe powered by logical clocks). The first sucks and no one has been able to design the second (code is an end result, not the process of solving a problem).
- IshKebab 6mo ago> It seems like everyone that hold this opinion want Git to be some magical tool that will guess their intent and automatically resolve the conflict. Absolutely not. There are plenty of fairly trivial solutions where Git's default merge algorithm gives you horrible diffs. Even for cases as simple as adding a function to a file it will get confused and put closing brackets in different parts of the diff. Nobody is asking for perfection but if you think it can't be improved you lack imagination. There are a number of projects to improve this like Mergiraf. Someone looked at fixing the "sliders" problem 10 years ago but sadly it didn't seem to go anywhere, probably because there are too many core Git developers who have the same attitude as you. https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools
- 1718627440 6mo ago> where Git's *default* merge algorithm gives you horrible diffs You are saying it yourself.
- IshKebab 6mo agoSaying what? Defaults matter. The fact that other people are doing their best to improve Git's mediocre defaults doesn't excuse it. I doubt you would defend any of Windows' poor defaults because there are tools to fix them.
- farouqjalabi 6mo agoGitbutler is backed by git. Gitbutler is essentially just ui for git which also allows you to have multiple branches. It isn't meant to replace git.
- toenail 6mo agoWhat does that even mean? Multiple branches is a git feature.
- rimliu 6mo agoand worktrees too.
- doublesocket 6mo agoWhich Claude literally uses.
- arnvald 6mo agoI think it means parallel branches. Normally in git you can use one branch at a time. With agentic coding you want agents to build multiple features at the same time, each in a separate branch
- _fizz_buzz_ 6mo agoCan agents not checkout different branches and then work on them? It's what people also do. I have a hard time to understand what problem is even solved here.
- stingraycharles 6mo agoYes, this is the obvious solution. Multiple agents working on multiple features should use feature branches. Can’t believe how this whole AI movement seems to want to reinvent software engineering, poorly.
- dethos 6mo agoBingo
- flux3125 6mo ago> but with people throwing money behind it, there’s a plan to extract value from the user base from day one. They'll start injecting ads in your commit messages, forcing you to subscribe to a premium plan.