22
Apache Allura: an open source implementation of a software forge (allura.apache.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Every code forge supporting only git just further enforces git’s monopoly on the VCS space

So what? You speak about git as if it were some half-proprietary solution aimed at maximizing corporate profit. Git isn't Chrome.

Git isn’t perfect, nor should be treated as perfect.

Yes, and because of that fact it has been evolving over the years.

VCS’s are still being itterated on and tooling being super git centric hurts that.

What I see is some resentful people about git - in the same way that happened with SVN and oh well git is objectively better than that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It being objectively better then SVN or CVS doesn't mean that it's the best we can do. Git has all sorts of non-ideal behaviors that other VCS's don't. Pijul's data structure for instance is inherently different from git and it can't be retrofitted on top. Making tooling only support git effectively kills off any potential competitors that could be superior to git.

    One example is pijul specifically let's you get away from the idea that moving commits between branches changes their identity, because pijul builds a tree of diffs. If two subtrees of diffs are distinct, they can always be applied without changing identity of those diffs. This means "cherry picking" a commit and then merging a commit doesn't effectively merge that commit twice resulting in a merge conflict.

    That's one example how one VCS can be better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That’s one example how one VCS can be better.

    What if we just upgrade git to have those features instead of reinventing the wheel?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    The data model there is fundamentally different. That would break how git would work because operations that worked one way before would now no longer work that way. You'd functionally have rewritten and mapped all the old functionality to new functionality with subtle differences, but at that point is it even git? You have a wrapper with similar but subtly different commands and that's it. It's like saying "instead of reinventing functionality by building both ext4 and btrfs, why don't we just improve ext4"?

    The two are practically entirely different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent