git-lfs VS traefik

What's the difference between this and Git-LFS?

https://git-lfs.com/

It doesn't, since Git's data model has to be changed to content-defined chunks to solve the issue.

You should look at git-lfs[1] instead.

[1] https://git-lfs.com

Congrats on the HN launch. How does this improve or expand or blow git-lfs[1] out of the water because if I needed large blob file support it's what I would use instead. It offers pointers to the big files to the hosted git instead of pushing around the binaries itself -- though I am speculating since I've not used it myself just read about it online.

[1] https://git-lfs.com/

Specifics depend on project types, but literate programming[0] and using/enforcing coding/git/versioning standards helps. re: outdated responses -- email list for 'new/updated version available' with errata/change log location.

[0] : https://blog.bitsrc.io/literate-programming-a-radical-approa...

[1] : https://blog.codacy.com/coding-standards

[2] : https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/blob/main/.github/workflo...

fine with layers: e.g., large binary files via git-lfs (https://git-lfs.com) and merge conflicts in non-textual files by custom merge resolvers like Unity’s (https://flashg.github.io/GitMerge-for-Unity/).

Perhaps in the future, almost everyone will keep using Git at the core, but have so many layers to make it more intuitive and provide better merges, that what they’re using barely resembles Git at all. This flexibility and the fact that nearly everything is designed for Git and integrates with Git, are why I doubt it’s ever going away.

Some alternatives for thought:

- pijul (https://pijul.org), a completely different VCS which allegedly has better merges/rebases. In beta, but I rarely hear about it nowadays and have heard more bad than good. I don’t think we can implement this alternate rebases in Git, but maybe we don’t need to; even after reading the website, I don’t understand why pijul’s merges are better, and in particular I can’t think of a concrete example nor does pijul provide one.

- Unison (https://www.unison-lang.org). This isn’t a VCS, but a language with a radical approach to code representation: instead of code being text stored in files, code is ASTs referenced by hash and stored in essentially a database. Among other advantages, the main one is that you can rename symbols and they will automatically propagate to dependencies, because the symbols are referenced by their hash instead of their name. I believe this automatic renaming will be common in the future, whether it’s implemented by a layer on top of Git or alternate code representation like Unison (to be clear, Unison’s codebases are designed to work with Git, and the Unison project itself is stored in Git repos).

- SVN, the other widespread VCS. Google or ask ChatGPT “Git vs SVN” and you’ll get answers like this (https://www.linode.com/docs/guides/svn-vs-git/, https://stackoverflow.com/a/875). Basically, SVN is easier to understand and handles large files better, Git is decentralized and more popular. But what about the differences which can’t be resolved by layers, like lazygit for intuition and git-lfs for large files? It seems to me like even companies with centralized private repositories use Git, meaning Git will probably win in the long term, but I don’t work at those companies so I don’t really know.

- Mercurial and Fossil, the other widespread VCSs. It seems these are more similar to Git and the main differences are in the low-level implementation (https://stackoverflow.com/a/892688, https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki#....). It actually seems like most people prefer Mercurial and Fossil over Git and would use them if they had the same popularity, or at least if they had Git’s popularity and Git had Mercury or Fossil’s. But again, these VCSs are so similar that with layers, you can probably create a Git experience which has their advantages and almost copies their UI.

> I don’t know what that is

its a standard output from `go doc`, rendered as HTML. if you dont recognize that, then you aren't really in a position to be commenting on the topic. nothing is stopping anyone from pinning to a tag:

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

or even a commit and relying of a specific version of the software. yes upgrades might be painful but a module IS available.

# git push origin feature-branch /usr/bin/gh auth git-credential get: 1: /usr/bin/gh auth git-credential get: /usr/bin/gh: not found /usr/bin/gh auth git-credential store: 1: /usr/bin/gh auth git-credential store: /usr/bin/gh: not found Enumerating objects: 9228, done. Counting objects: 100% (7495/7495), done. Delta compression using up to 8 threads Compressing objects: 100% (2090/2090), done. Writing objects: 100% (6033/6033), 72.77 MiB | 7.39 MiB/s, done. Total 6033 (delta 4402), reused 5194 (delta 3616) remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (4402/4402), completed with 477 local objects. remote: error: Trace: c1c90b47a5483929dcdd8c974a6c7d0695e86f67f680d8b88b80ef1c1bce74a remote: error: See https://gh.io/lfs for more information. remote: error: File deployment_20200220.sql is 872.78 MB; this exceeds GitHub's file size limit of 100.00 MB remote: error: GH001: Large files detected. You may want to try Git Large File Storage - https://git-lfs.github.com. To https://github.com/my-org/my-project.git ! [remote rejected] rest-logging -> rest-logging (pre-receive hook declined) error: failed to push some refs to 'https://github.com/my-org/my-project.git'

apparently "traffic" https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/795

Pronounced "traffic", Traefik is a modern HTTP reverse proxy and load balancer aimed at making deploying microservices easier. It integrates with your existing infrastructure components such as Docker, Kubernetes, and others, and configures itself automatically and dynamically. The latest version adds lots of new options and enhancements such as adding healthcheck options, support for custom headers, and more. Read the migration guide on how to update to the latest version which is now required due to breaking changes.

> I think etcd is basically a k8s only project now

I hate etcd with the best of them, but etcd is used in a lot more places than just kubernetes:

https://github.com/apache/apisix/blob/master/docs/en/latest/...

https://github.com/traefik/traefik#:~:text=Etcd,

https://github.com/zalando/patroni#patroni-a-template-for-po...

https://github.com/purpleidea/mgmt/tree/0.0.26/etcd (this one shows up on HN quite a bit)

https://github.com/sorintlab/stolon#features

It's actually one of the major reasons I wouldn't touch those projects

However, it's very unlikely that .NET developers will directly expose their Kestrel-based web apps to the internet. Typically, we use other popular web servers like Nginx, Traefik, and Caddy to act as a reverse-proxy in front of Kestrel for various reasons:

Not as good though. Case in point: https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/5472#issuecomment-... (that's just from this morning)

I'm speak objectively here. Of course, any built-in auto HTTPS that works (more or less) is better than none. Traefik uses an ACME library that was originally written for Caddy. After the original author left that project, Traefik team started maintaining it. Caddy's users' requirements exceeded what the library was capable of, but unfortunately there was friction in getting it to achieve our requirements. So I ended up writing a new ACME client library in Go and, together with upgrades in CertMagic (Caddy's auto-TLS lib), Caddy has the more flexible, robust, and capable auto-HTTPS functionality.

That is to say, not all auto-HTTPS functionalities are the same.

We'll use Traefik, an open source cloud native gateway that can plug into a Kubernetes cluster. It has the concept of "middleware" that can process API requests before passing them through to a backend. We can configuring a rate limit for all of our API endpoints by matching on the request path:

I did the same question here and here

Sadly there is currently no way of doing so. https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/6999