Tahoe-LAFS VS eng-practices

You could also look at Tahoe-LAFS which I keep meaning to try: https://tahoe-lafs.org/

Then there are Darcs and Pijul, which use a theory of patches.

So Pijul manages to have lossless merges by actually storing a directed graph (though of course, you will still need to decide how to flatten that into a displayed file) :

https://jneem.github.io/pijul/

And because uses more information about the history, it is able to do smarter merges (if I am not mistaken, even compared to the OP ?) :

https://tahoe-lafs.org/~zooko/badmerge/simple.html

https://pijul.org/faq

Good news for you: I'm well on the way to solving the problem of better code merging. Specifically, the algorithms I am developing appear to be able to do a correct merge on both [1] and [2]. They also appear capable of merging binary data.

The tradeoff is that people need to write some code to tell the VCS about the format of each binary file type or semantics of each programming language.

The biggest problem is that, like Rust, a new VCS has to be well-executed to make its innovation stick. We'll see if I succeed.

[1]: https://tahoe-lafs.org/~zooko/badmerge/simple.html

[2]: https://tahoe-lafs.org/~zooko/badmerge/concrete-bad-semantic...

u/nextale shared a couple options: Tahoe-LAFS , Duplicati an Retroshare

Only thing that comes close is https://tahoe-lafs.org

There is Tahoe-LAFS which is decentralized open-source software where you can add remote storage servers (for example on a friends server) to store your data but the server does not have the encryption keys. Your data is encrypted before it leaves your computer (they call it "Least Authority File System" or LAFS because only you hold the keys, the storage servers just store the data). The data is encrypted in-transit and on-rest and supports multiple nodes so even if one of the servers burn down you still have the same data elsewhere. I believe they offer a commercial storage solution but you and your friends could install it for yourselves and run a closed network.

do you know https://tahoe-lafs.org? your goals sound similar.

P.S. Learn more about how Google accelerates reviews here: Fast Review.

i think google's resource is really good in this topic: https://google.github.io/eng-practices/

For the last point, some places DO teach this, see https://github.com/google/eng-practices for an example. The other bullets have entire volumes of books written about them.

I think you get the idea. I've never worked anywhere in my 15 years that actually actually enforced high quality code, testing, and process. Google posts there engineering practices (https://google.github.io/eng-practices/) and if they follow what they preach Gmail is probably scrunched harder then the dialysis machine that I worked on.

There's an open source repo documenting advice for code reviews from the perspectives of both the coder and the reviewer: https://github.com/google/eng-practices

IMO most of the practical "research" I've seen comes in the form of best practices from Big Co. who a) hire very intelligent people and b) have extreme financial incentives to write the best code & have the best processes possible.

In a world where the dependent variable isn't something that can easily be measured in a lab, the next best we can do is either 1\ Ask experts or 2\ experiment in an environment where it's financially advisable to experiment & measure (AKA an environment where running an experiment with 100 engineers is <1% of your engineering headcount).

I.e. I don't work for Google, but I do share things like [0, 1] with new engineers who join my team.

[0] https://google.github.io/eng-practices/

This is a through explanation of how to do Code Reviews as the author and reviewer https://google.github.io/eng-practices/

Google's Engineering Practices