3 ms·

We all need to give ourselves a push and finally make the next step in version control. Github, Google, Microsoft, Meta (did I forget anyone relevant? Probably)

by jansan 6mo ago

We all need to give ourselves a push and finally make the next step in version control. Github, Google, Microsoft, Meta (did I forget anyone relevant? Probably) should just join forces and finally make it happen, which should not be a problem with a new system that is backend compatible to Git. Sure, Github may lose some appeal to their brand name, but hey, this is actually for making the world a better place.

ramblerman 6mo ago
The new solution is better. It’s so good we must get all the big players to mandate its usage. If ur making an appeal on a forum like this u could have gone with ur favorite feature, or anything else really.
- jansan 6mo ago
  It is not about starting over, like moving from CVS or Subversion to Git. jj is backend compatible to Git, so nothing really had to change on the backend. It's just that although Git was created by Linus Torvalds it is not perfect and could be more beginner friendly. But efforts to improve this should be concerted, not individual efforts. And it does not have to be jj. I just think there is room for improvement, and not to alienate old farts it could be called GitNext, GitStep, GitFlow or similar to emphasize that is still is just Git, only with an improved front end. Maybe Linus Torvalds himself should start the initiative.
  - childintime 6mo ago
    Linus? Too tired of the open source community to risk having to deal with it more. Hasn't released anything since 2005, he just drifts on the waves. So sad he doesn't see the human energy wasted on his projects, and doesn't move them into the modern era, where compatibility with the past can be dropped in favor of a much tighter feature set, while also coming free of C/C++. In short: don't count on Linus, he's been a coward, he's too comfortable leading from the back.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
SOLAR_FIELDS 6mo ago
Every time I see a statement like this I wonder what specific features of git that people feel like are terrible enough that it’s time to completely start over. Besides “the UX is kinda shit and it’s confusing to learn”, which there are many solutions for already that don’t involve reinventing a pretty good wheel.
- seanhunter 6mo ago
  Right. How we got git was cvs was totally terrible[1], so Linus refused to use it. Larry McEvoy persuaded Linus to use Bitkeeper for the Linux kernel development effort. After trying Bitkeeper for a while, Linus did the thing of writing v0 of git in a weekend in a response to what he saw as the shortcomings of Bitkeeper for his workflow.[2] But the point is there had already been vcs that saw wide adoption, serious attempts to address shortcomings in those (perforce and bitkeeper in particular) and then git was created to address specific shortcomings in those systems. It wasn't born out of just a general "I wish there was something easier than rebase" whine or a desire to create the next thing. I haven't seen anything that comes close to being compelling in that respect. jj comes into that bucket for me. It looks "fine". Like if I was forced to use it I wouldn't complain. It doesn't look materially better than git in any way whatsoever though, and articles like this which say "it has no index" make me respond with "Like ok whatever bro". It really makes no practical difference to me whether the VCS has an index. [1] I speak as someone who maintained a CVS repo with nearly 700 active developers and >20mm lines of code. When someone made a mistake and you had to go in and edit the repo files in binary format it was genuinely terrifying. [2] In a cave. From a box of scraps. You get the idea.
  - bombcar 6mo ago
    To be fair the "shortcomings" that spurred it on mainly were the Samba guys (or just one) reverse-engineering Bitkeeper causing the kernel free license getting pulled, which caused Linus to say "I can build my own with blackjack and pre-commit hooks" and then he did, addressing it toward his exact use case. It gained tons of popularity mainly because of Linus being behind it; similar projects already existed when it was released.

by jansan 6mo ago

ramblerman 6mo ago

The new solution is better. It’s so good we must get all the big players to mandate its usage. If ur making an appeal on a forum like this u could have gone with ur favorite feature, or anything else really.

jansan 6mo ago
It is not about starting over, like moving from CVS or Subversion to Git. jj is backend compatible to Git, so nothing really had to change on the backend. It's just that although Git was created by Linus Torvalds it is not perfect and could be more beginner friendly. But efforts to improve this should be concerted, not individual efforts. And it does not have to be jj. I just think there is room for improvement, and not to alienate old farts it could be called GitNext, GitStep, GitFlow or similar to emphasize that is still is just Git, only with an improved front end. Maybe Linus Torvalds himself should start the initiative.
- childintime 6mo ago
  Linus? Too tired of the open source community to risk having to deal with it more. Hasn't released anything since 2005, he just drifts on the waves. So sad he doesn't see the human energy wasted on his projects, and doesn't move them into the modern era, where compatibility with the past can be dropped in favor of a much tighter feature set, while also coming free of C/C++. In short: don't count on Linus, he's been a coward, he's too comfortable leading from the back.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]

SOLAR_FIELDS 6mo ago

Every time I see a statement like this I wonder what specific features of git that people feel like are terrible enough that it’s time to completely start over. Besides “the UX is kinda shit and it’s confusing to learn”, which there are many solutions for already that don’t involve reinventing a pretty good wheel.

seanhunter 6mo ago
Right. How we got git was cvs was totally terrible[1], so Linus refused to use it. Larry McEvoy persuaded Linus to use Bitkeeper for the Linux kernel development effort. After trying Bitkeeper for a while, Linus did the thing of writing v0 of git in a weekend in a response to what he saw as the shortcomings of Bitkeeper for his workflow.[2] But the point is there had already been vcs that saw wide adoption, serious attempts to address shortcomings in those (perforce and bitkeeper in particular) and then git was created to address specific shortcomings in those systems. It wasn't born out of just a general "I wish there was something easier than rebase" whine or a desire to create the next thing. I haven't seen anything that comes close to being compelling in that respect. jj comes into that bucket for me. It looks "fine". Like if I was forced to use it I wouldn't complain. It doesn't look materially better than git in any way whatsoever though, and articles like this which say "it has no index" make me respond with "Like ok whatever bro". It really makes no practical difference to me whether the VCS has an index. [1] I speak as someone who maintained a CVS repo with nearly 700 active developers and >20mm lines of code. When someone made a mistake and you had to go in and edit the repo files in binary format it was genuinely terrifying. [2] In a cave. From a box of scraps. You get the idea.
- bombcar 6mo ago
  To be fair the "shortcomings" that spurred it on mainly were the Samba guys (or just one) reverse-engineering Bitkeeper causing the kernel free license getting pulled, which caused Linus to say "I can build my own with blackjack and pre-commit hooks" and then he did, addressing it toward his exact use case. It gained tons of popularity mainly because of Linus being behind it; similar projects already existed when it was released.