jujutsu is a fresh take on git-- you describe the work you're about to do with jj new -m 'message'. Do the work. Anything not previously ignored in .gitignore is ready to commit with jj ci. You don't have to git add anything. No futzing with stashes to switch or refocus work. Need that file back? jj restore FILENAME.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
130 points (97.1% liked)
Programming
17424 readers
29 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's very optimistic to think people will be able to describe what they're going to do before they do it. I find things rarely go exactly as planned and my commit messages usually include some nuance about my changes that I didn't anticipate.
This is true. But at jj ci you're plonked into an editor and can change the description.
I use git daily and still wonder why I had fewer merge issues on a larger team in the 1990s with command line rcs on Solaris. Maybe we were just more disciplined then. I know we were less likely to work on the same file concurrently. I feel like I spend more time fighting the tools than I ever used to. Some of that is because of the dumb decisions that were made on our project a decade or more ago.
I know we were less likely to work on the same file concurrently.
I mean, isn't that when merge conflicts happen? Isn't that your answer?
I was trying to say that tools were better about letting us know that another developer was modifying the same file as us, so we would collaborate in advance of creating the conflict.
I gotcha, I misunderstood
Split up the monorepo?
That brings more problems. Despite the scaling challenges monorepos are clearly the way to go for company code in most cases.
Unfortunately my company heavily uses submodules and it is a complete mess. People duplicating work all over the place, updates in submodules breaking their super-modules because testing becomes intractable. Tons of duplicate submodules because of transitive dependencies. Making cross-repo changes becomes extremely difficult.
But if not for using submodules, how can one share code between (mono-)repos, which rely on the same common "module" / library / etc.? Is it a matter of "not letting submodules usage get out of hand", sticking to an "upper limit of submodules", or are submodules to be avoided entirely for monorepos of a certain scale and there's a better option?
You don't share code between monorepos, the whole point of a monorepo is you only have one repo where all code goes. Want to share a library, just start using it as it is just in a different directory.
Submodules are a poor way to share code between lots of small separate repos. IMO they should never be used as I have never seen them work well.
If you don't want a mono repo then have your repos publish code to artifact stores/registries that can be reused by other projects. But IMO that just adds more complexities and problems then having everything in a single repo does.
So AFAIU, if a company had:
- frontend
- backend
- desktop apps
- mobile apps
... and all those apps would share some smaller, self developed libraries / components with the frontend and/or backend, then the "no submodules, but one big monorepo" approach would be to just put all those apps into that monorepo as well and simply reference whatever shared code there might be via relative paths, effectively tracking "latest", or maybe some distinct "stable version folders" (not sure if that's a thing).
Anyway, certainly never thought to go that far, because having an app that's "mostly independant" from a codebase perspective be in it's own repo seemed beneficial. But yeah, it seems to me this is a matter of scale and at some point the cost of not having everything in a monorepo would become too great.
Thanks!
Yeah exactly that. Conceptually it's far superior to manyrepos. But it does have downsides:
gitwill be slower, and it doesn't really have great support for this way of working. I mean it provides raw commands for partial checkouts... but you're kind of on your own.- You can't realistically view a
git log --graphany more since there will be just way too many commits. Though tbf you can get to that state without a monorepo if you have a big project and work with numskulls who make 50 commits for a small MR and don't squash.
Also it's not really a downside since you should be doing this anyway, but you need to use a build tool that sandboxes dependencies so it can guarantee there are no missing edges in your dependency graph (Bazel, Buck, Pants, Please, Landlock Make, etc.). Otherwise you will be constantly breaking master when things aren't checked in CI that should be.
True, git itself can't prevent people from creating a mess of a commit graph.
TBH, lots of build systems mentioned here I've never encountered so far.
But this makes it clearer that one can't reason about how viable a "one big monorepo only" approach mighy be by just considering the capabilities of current git, coming from a "manyrepo" mindset. Likely that was the pitfall I fell into coming into this discussion.
As far as performance goes, Microsoft did manage to make git work for them later on (...with many contributions upstreamed and homegrown solutions developed—but then, Facebook is the same, isn't it?).
My best VCS experience so far was when working with Plastic SCM. I like how it can track merges, the code review workflow is also nice, and in general it was pretty nice to work with.
Fuck Unity, who paywalled it into unusability, though. Another amazing project that was bought and killed by absurd monetization by Unity, same as Parsec.
How was Parsec before the acquisition?
I only really have experience after, and it's the only Unity product I've actually found that I like. My only major complaint is that it's not compatible with the base configuration of Palo Alto, but that's really more of a Palo Alto problem than a Parsec problem.
I still use Parsec for remote, and I don't have any issue with it, it works great and I like it. However, they also did offer a free SDK (Unity plugin) to integrate remote play into your game natively (just like you can have "Invite to Steam Remote Play" button from Steam SDK), which was exactly what we needed - and Steam Remote was never working without issues for us, in comparison to Parsec which worked amazingly well every time we tried it.
I found numerous mentions of Parsec SDK and how easy it is to integrate, but after Unity bought it, I couldn't find it anywhere. Only mention was that if you need it, you should contact them.
So I did that, mentioning that we are a small team of students working on a offline co-op only 2 player game in our free time, and that since Steam Remote wasn't working for us and I have great experience with Parsec, I asked what we have to do to get access to the SDK/Unity plugin.
Unity's answer? Sure, no problem, they will be happy to give us access, with first step being that we pay them 1 000 000$ for it.
Like, wtf? Did they even read the email? How out of touch you have to be, to casually ask a small student team to pay 1 000 000$?
Okay that's fair. Their pricing is awful in general, and that's especially egregious for something that used to be free
view more: next ›