jj VS VFSForGit

Jujutsu is along the lines of what you describe: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

You can drop it in and work seamlessly from git repos

Pull Requests (or Merge Requests) are merged only when (1) all of the automated tests pass; and (2) enough necessary reviewers have indicated approval.

Git doesn't tell you when it's necessary to have full test coverage and manual infosec review in development cycles that produce releases, and neither do Pull Requests.

https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-19552164 ctrl-f hubflow

It looks like datasift's gitflow/hubflow docs are 404'ing, but the original nvie blog post [1] has the Git branching workflow diagrams; which the wpsharks/hubflow fork [3] of datasift/gitflow fork [2] of gitflow [1]has a copy of in the README:

[1] https://github.com/nvie/gitflow

[2] https://github.com/datasift/gitflow

[3] https://github.com/wpsharks/hubflow?tab=readme-ov-file

https://learngitbranching.js.org/ is still a great resource, and it could work on mobile devices.

The math of VCS deltas and mutable and immutable content-addressed DAG nodes identified by 2^n bits describing repo/$((2*inf)) bits ;

>> "ugit – Learn Git Internals by Building Git in Python" https://www.leshenko.net/p/ugit/

SLSA.dev is a social construct atop e.g. git, which is really a low-level purpose-built tool and Perl and now Python porcelain.

jj (jujutsu) is a git-compatible VCS CLI: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

"Ask HN: Best Git workflow for small teams" (2016)

You will probably like Jujutsu, which takes much inspiration from Mercurial: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

It isn't a 1-to-1 clone, either. But tools like revsets are there, cset evolution is "built in" to the design, etc. There is no concept of phases, we might think about adding that, but there is a concept of immutable commits (so you don't overwrite public ones.)

It also has many novel features that make it stand out. We care a lot about performance and usability. Give it a shot. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

Disclosure: I am a developer of Jujutsu. I do it in my spare time.

I have created a discussion. Thank you both

https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/2691

> why don't version control systems (especially ones that can change history) have undo/redo functionality out of the box?

It's true. And Jujutsu has undo functionality out of the box, too. It's not just Sapling. :) https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

Git made the only choice a popular VCS can make. History rewrites will exist, period. If you're opposed to history rewrites, then git gives you the tools to ensure the repos you control are not rewritten, and that's all it can do in a world where people have control of their own computers.

If Fossil ever becomes as popular as git, people will create software that allows history rewriting in Fossil, and that's fine. People will do what they want on their own computer, and I think it's morally wrong to try and stop that.

Another user in this thread linked to jj [0], an alternative git client that does some pretty weird things. For example, it replaces the working tree with a working commit and commits quite often. I like git and that seems weird to me, but I'm not offended, people can do what they want on their own computer and I have the tools to ensure repos under my control are not effected. That's all I can hope for.

[0]: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

I recently found out about another project called jj: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj. It takes inspiration from Pijul and others but is git-compatible.

https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

I think maybe both fossil and bitkeeper are more intuitive too.

Did you try any of those?

It's not only Windows that uses Git at Microsoft, but Sharepoint and Office (which includes the on-prem version of SharePoint). In terms of repo size Windows and Office are similar. I was part of the team that migrated Sharepoint from a Perforce clone to Git and helped build the tooling to allow Office to move as well. VFS for Git [1] and Scalar [2] are really good pieces of software.

[1] - https://github.com/microsoft/VFSForGit

[2] - https://github.com/microsoft/scalar

Congratulations! That means you basically figured out how the clone procedure works and found a way to do so just in a partial way (also in an unsafe way). But it is a cool idea, nonetheless.

Also check out the Scalar [1] project and its predecessor, GVFS [2], both from Microsoft to manage their monorepo via a VFS layer.

[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/scalar

[2]: https://github.com/microsoft/VFSForGit

VFS for Git is still Open Source: https://github.com/microsoft/VFSForGit

Microsoft's blog posts have indicated a move to use something as close to off-the-shelf git as possible, though. They say they've stopped using VFS much and are instead more often relying on sparse checkouts. They've upstreamed a lot of patches into git itself, and maintain their own git fork but the fork distance is generally shrinking as those patches upstream.

https://github.com/microsoft/VFSForGit

better than it used to, with the caveat that git in particular is not and has never claimed to be good at versioning blobs.

Oh dear you're not going to like this.

It’s virtualised file system: https://github.com/microsoft/VFSForGit, only downloads what you actually use. Same thing in every large company, but different implementations.

This is where something like VFSForGit[0] helps out. Instead of cloning the entire repo, it creates a virtual file system and fetches objects on demand. MSFT uses it internally for the Windows source tree (which now exceeds 300GB).

[0]: https://github.com/microsoft/VFSForGit

There's also a performance consideration. Not excluding /bin/ or /obj/ folders means dependencies are being tracked as well, and sometimes dependencies themselves are bigger than the program's source code itself. This is commonly the case with node projects, as the node_modules folder can balloon to hundreds of megabytes. They should never be tracked in git due to the nature of how git's internal database works. For e.g. if you delete a dependency because it's no longer needed, you can never fully reclaim that disk space (at least for the master branch) as git will need to keep the binary data stored in its internal tracking database because a previous commit in the master branch has captured the data. As you make more branches, git needs to store the data required to reconstruct your repo to a different state when you switch branches. When a branch has changes measured in the kilobytes, check out is very manageable, but when the differences balloon to many MBs due to the presence of heavy binary files, then checkout between different branches/commits can get very slow. Though, this happens anyway when source code data eventually reaches a certain threshold, beyond the hundreds of megabytes, it's made unnecessarily worse by including any binary files. It's one of the reasons Microsoft created VFS for git: https://github.com/microsoft/VFSForGit.

You mean like VFSforGit? Or the successor for that called Scalar? This has been a solved problem. Microsoft moved their entire Windows codebase to git. There have been a ton of huge improvements to performance as a result of that. And the above two plugins are easily better ways to deal with what you're referring to without resulting to dead tech.