Our great sponsors
got | josh | |
---|---|---|
12 | 21 | |
128 | 1,326 | |
0.8% | 4.0% | |
6.1 | 7.5 | |
8 months ago | 16 days ago | |
Go | Rust | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
got
-
Show HN: A version control system based on rsync
I've not heard the term "probabilistic tree" and I've having difficulty pulling up references. I suspect it's implemented by subpackage ptree[0]. Do you have resources on what makes probabilistic trees different from hash tables?
[0] https://github.com/gotvc/got/tree/master/pkg/gotkv/ptree
-
CDC File Transfer
FastCDC is the same chunking algorithm used in Got.
https://github.com/gotvc/got
-
SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed
Thanks for sharing RocketGit. This is the first time I've heard of it, and yes, it does look like a cool copyleft solution to self-hosted Git.
Another interesting option is Brendan Caroll's got[0], which allows sharing of repositories over INET256[1]. I'm sure there are other P2P approaches to Git, but this one just piqued my interest. Unfortunately it has a naming conflict with OpenBSD's Game of Trees[2].
[0] https://github.com/gotvc/got
[1] https://github.com/inet256/inet256
[2] https://gameoftrees.org/
-
Show HN: Encrypted Git hosting should be easy
I work on a project which solves a similar use case.
https://github.com/gotvc/got
Got also does E2EE encryption, but it can additionally encrypt branch names from remote servers.
-
What Comes After Git
I've been working on a project "Got". Which deals with the LFS problem, mentioned in the post.
https://github.com/gotvc/got
Got isn't really trying to do software version control better than Git. It's trying to make general purpose file versioning practical, with a workflow similar to Git's.
-
Show HN: Let's build an end-to-end encrypted data store
In the same space is the key-value store underlying Got: GotKV. https://github.com/gotvc/got/tree/master/pkg/gotkv
It stores encrypted blobs in any content-addressed store, and provides a copy-on-write key-value store API.
- Got is like Git, but with an 'o'
- Show HN: Got is like Git, but with an 'o'
josh
- GitHub – josh-project/josh: Just One Single History
-
Debian Git Monorepo
Why use submodules when you can properly vendor the upstream git, and export/import commits without breaking hashes on either side?
https://github.com/josh-project/josh
We've been using josh at TVL for years and it's just amazing.
- Josh: Just One Single History
- Just One Single History
- Metahead – An enterprise-grade, Git-based metarepo
-
PyPy has moved to Git, GitHub
Scalar explicitly does not implement the virtualized filesystem the OP is referring to. The original Git VFS for Windows that Microsoft designed did in fact do this, but as your second link notes, Microsoft abandoned that in favor of Scalar's totally different design which explicitly was about scaling repositories without filesystem virtualization.
There's a bunch of related features they added to Git to achieve scalability without virtualization. Those are all useful and Scalar is a welcome addition. But the need for a virtual filesystem layer for large-scale repositories is still a very real one. There are also some limitations that aren't ideal; for example Git's partial clones IIRC can only be used as a "cone" applied to the original filesystem hierarchy. More generalized designs would allow mapping any arbitrary paths in the original repository to any other path in the virtual checkout. Tools like Josh can do this today with existing Git repositories[1]. That helps you get even sparser and smaller checkouts.
The Git for Windows that was referenced isn't even that big at 300GB, by the way. Game studios regularly have repositories that exist at multi-terabyte size, and they have also converged on similar virtualization solutions. For example, Destiny 2 uses a "virtual file synchronization" layer called VirtualSync[2] that reduced the working size of their checkouts by over 98%, multiple terabytes of savings per person. And in a twist of fate, VirtualSync was implemented thanks to a feature called "ProjFS" that Microsoft added to Windows... which was motivated originally by the Git VFS for Windows they abandoned!
[1] https://github.com/josh-project/josh
[2] https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1027699/Virtual-Sync-Terabytes...
- Just One Single History – combine the advantages of monorepos with multirepos
-
Kubernetes Broke Git
Good overview, I know these sorts of pains well. Lots of hard questions and few definitive wins/right answers. How to organize a massive repository out in the open is still an open question. On that note, recently, I've been experimenting with this project called josh, which basically is like 'git subtree on extreme steroids, functioning as a git proxy':
https://josh-project.github.io/josh/
It basically lets you unify/view many repositories as a single one, or equivalent to split a mono-repo into smaller sized units of work for CI, specific teams, etc. It's bidirectional, so you push and pull from josh and everything goes into a single linear history in the mono repo. And because it's bidirectional, people in the mono-repo can still do things like make large-scale atomic changes across all sub-repositories, and those get reflected.
Josh currently isn't suitable for a lot of workloads due to various reasons (authentication is one that stands out), but it's actually the first tool I have seen that manages to offer BitKeeper-like "subtrees" that work really well, at scale, for large repos and teams. It requires some care to make sure "sub-trees" can be usable units of work, but it was one of the best features of BK in my opinion and really great for people doing one-off contributions, or isolating trees/changes to specific developers.
I'd be interested to know if there are other open alternatives to this. It's a nice point in the design space between solutions like "integrate with the filesystem layer to do sparse clones" or "just split up the repos."
-
What Comes After Git
With regard to repo composition, I have been following this project: https://github.com/josh-project/josh
What are some alternatives?
cdc-file-transfer - Tools for synching and streaming files from Windows to Linux
josh - Just One Single History
backup - immutable backups so simple that unborkable
git-filter-repo - Quickly rewrite git repository history (filter-branch replacement)
forge - Work with Git forges from the comfort of Magit
scalar - Scalar: A set of tools and extensions for Git to allow very large monorepos to run on Git without a virtualization layer
Zenko - Zenko is the open source multi-cloud data controller: own and keep control of your data on any cloud.
josh - Just One Single History [Moved to: https://github.com/josh-project/josh]
git-remote-aws - encrypted git hosting should be easy
git-branchless - High-velocity, monorepo-scale workflow for Git
imsy - simple incremental pull of immutable large files
VFSForGit - Virtual File System for Git: Enable Git at Enterprise Scale