FRESH

Hacker News

Home

More on Version Control

91 points by velmu

by rs545837

0 subcomment

usually the whole discussion has been around line-level vs commit-level history, but there's a layer nobody's talking about, and I have been exploring it here these days with https://github.com/Ataraxy-Labs/sem. It gives you entity-level version control. It parses your code into functions, classes, methods using tree-sitter (12 languages so far), computes a structural hash for each entity, and builds a cross-file dependency graph. So sem diff HEAD~1 doesn't give you "+3 -2 in tax.py", it gives you "calculate_tax signature changed, 47 dependents, 3 callers will break". The key insight is distinguishing signature changes from body changes.

by tcoff91

2 subcomments

So many tools are tightly coupled to git or just assume that everybody uses git. I think that it's hard for any new VCS to gain traction without good git compatibility.
For instance Pijul might very well be a lot better than git / jj. I wouldn't know, I haven't bothered trying it because all the projects I need to work in use git. But since jj has great git compatibility, I actually have been able to adopt it because of its git backend.
A new VCS that doesn't have git compatibility at its core is going to have a really hard time overcoming network effects.

by kleiba

1 subcomments

> Git is very simple, reliable, and versatile, but it isn’t very functional.
Funny, I would probably swap the first and the last adjective in that sentence.

by sfink

1 subcomments

I've read much of the HN discussion on the previous post, a skimmed the rest, but I didn't see a couple of things addressed:
First, how could you make this deal with copies and renames? It seems to me like the pure version of this would require a weave of your whole repository.
Second, how different is this from something like jujutsu? As in, of course it's different, your primary data structure is a weave. But jj keeps all of the old commits around for any change (and prevents git from garbage collecting them by maintaining refs from the op log). So in theory, you could replay the entire history of a file at a particular commit by tracing back through the evolog. That, plus the exact diff algorithm, seems like enough to recreate the weave at any point in time (well, at any commit), and so you could think of this whole thing as a caching layer on top of what jj already provides. I'm not saying you would want to implement it like that, but conceptually I don't see the difference and so there might be useful "in between" implementations to consider.
In fact, you could even specify different diff algorithms for different commits if you really wanted to. Which would be a bit of a mess, because you'd have to store that and a weave would be a function of those diff algorithms and when they were used, but it would at least be possible. (Cohen's system could do this too, at the cost of tracking lots of stuff that currently it doesn't need or want to track.) I'm skeptical that this would be useful except in a very limited sense (eg you could switch diff algorithms and have all new commits use the new one, without needing to rebuild your entire repository). It breaks distributed scenarios -- everyone has to agree on which diff to use for each commit. It's just something that falls out of having the complete history available.
I'm cheating with jj a bit here, since normally you won't be pushing the evolog to remotes so in practice you probably don't have the complete history. In practice, when pushing to a remote you might want to materialize a weave or a weave-like "compiled history" and push that too/instead, just like in Cohen's model, if you really wanted to do this. And that would come with limitations on the diff used for history-less usage, since the weave has to assume a specific deterministic diff.

by kelnos

1 subcomments

> The unsafe versions of these things literally throw out history and replace it with a fiction that whoever did the final operation wrote everything, or that the original author wrote something possibly very divergent from what they actually wrote.
When I'm rebasing my own work and editing history, that's exactly what I'm looking to accomplish, though.

by josephg

2 subcomments

> Oddly they don’t seem to have figured out the generation counting trick, which is something I did come up with over twenty years ago. Combining the two ideas is what allows for there to be no reference to commit ids in the history and have the entire algorithm be structural.
Can you say more about this? What exactly is this trick you’re talking about? What are the benefits?

by SAI_Peregrinus

0 subcomment

Discussion on the previous post in this series: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47478401

by Surac

2 subcomments

I for my part have not migrated to GIT cause i do not need the extra hoops like staging area or syncing whole repos over network. I have always a server at my side and can work with checkout/checkin. This implies a hard requirement at interface definitions, cause people can't just alter them. Seeing people struggle with all the problems introduced with the git way of work I feel there is still a big market for not git. People are introduced to git and stop asking if there isn't something more good to there workfow. Excuse my english please, im a non native speaker

by xihe-forge

0 subcomment

[dead]

by mrtesthah

0 subcomment

Someone make a TLA+ model for this bad boy