Anything "for agents" needs to provide some kind of evidence it's better than what the agents already have baked into the model training data. It can't just be "easier" on some dimension, because the model has already learned the hard parts of the old thing and models can't make new memories to learn new things, so there is always a context cost for the new thing.
Models know git because there's a monstrous amount of git in their training data. Models never heard of a new thing "for agents", so you have to teach them to use it via skills and docs. Models can, of course, follow documentation, so there's nothing stopping them from using the new thing...but, the new thing "for agents" starts the race well behind the known thing that was built for humans a decade or two ago and has huge amounts of training data baked into every model.
I'm not saying nobody should make new things (an accusation I've gotten when saying something similar about a previous "for agents" thing), of course people should make new things. I'm saying that when I see "for agents", I think, "prove it". Agents don't have trouble with git, so there's gotta be some kind of pain point about using git with agents that I'm unaware of that this solves somehow (but isn't expressed on the page) or this isn't actually for agents, it's just a project someone wanted to do (and that's also fine!). But, if the latter, "for agents" is merely marketing and I'm not interested.
I have absolutely no idea what this offers that makes it better than git (or any over VCS for that matter) for agents.
There’s some mention about performance, which is great, but the performance of git isn’t a bottleneck for agents.
There’s some mention about token use being reduced, which is great, but how have they achieved that vs gits porcelain modes. And why does token count require a whole new VCS, and thus incompatibilities with all the established git ecosystems?
I really want to find reasons to like this but it’s probably some of the worst product marketing I’ve seen. And something this significant really does need to sell itself hard if you’re going to get enough people in a project team to agree to switch away from git
The main site mentions being able to "mount" a branch, vs. cloning a new repo or using git worktrees. And messageless commits for intermediate work. Besides that tho I don't see a compelling reason to ditch git, but looks interesting enough that I want to keep an eye on it
>the performance of git isn’t a bottleneck for agents.
Eh, it depends on the workflow. Especially if you have certain stack based workflows. Worktrees are kinda half solution here but depending on the repo type and if you are dealing with LFS or sparse checkouts, I've had agents struggle really hard to work through a stack or rebase things without a lot of thrashing or being IO bound by just stumbling into operations in a boneheaded way. Now I have AGENTS.md/skills/hooks gaurdrails littered about to try and work around things.
> Eh, it depends on the workflow. Especially if you have certain stack based workflows.
I would normally assume there's 0 percent chance that `git` (the binary) is a significant impact on LLM based devel. The same applies to git, the protocol/format/tree.
I'd love to hear about what makes the workflow you have, where any part of git becomes a noticable proportion of the process? Unless you mean your LLM just can't figure out how to use git?
I've built my own workflow for using agents on git, as i now often have to do changes across repositories, or in the same repository for different tasks. I could use worktrees, but I'd rather invert it, give agents the ability to have a workspace, that they pull repositories into, create branches as they want, commit on main it doesn't matter. the agents don't bother each other, and when i finally have to merge, conflicts are either resolved, or it is just smooth sailing.
The tool is called gitnow. it is honestly quite simple, just create a project, add the repositories you want and get to building. I've found having another claude chat or whatever use the tool to great success coupled with zellij, but could also be zed, tmux or whatever.
Secondly it also pretty much solves the problem of the agent dumping memory files everywhere, they now basically have a scratch space that is theirs, where they can keep their tasks, and just update the repositories as needed.
Use gn the shell after eval if you use it, it will actually invoke cd, instead of creating a subshell.
Looks very interesting, but it's difficult to see the benefit from git right now apart from performance? Don't get me wrong, that's good, but I don't think it's a big enough proposition to get people to ditch git and move to oak.
Since it's early, here a couple of things I'd loooove git to be and it's not, maybe you can consider to go in this direction and, if there are many more like me, get a large user base:
- The private/public quantum shouldn't be a repo but something more fluid within a repo. A public repo should be able to have private sub-directories, files, etc. If should be fluid in this regard, so big projects could open-source <i>some</i> features, not all. Right now it's all or nothing, and that closes the doors to many big closed projects.
- env variables. If you could make its usage easier and more seamless within oak, that could convince many (me included). It's really a headache to deal with env vars and git, and shouldn't be the case.
- Collaboration for agents beyond PRs. I don't know exactly what's the flavor for this, but I know that fundamentally the create PR/merge circle of git is not how it should be.
Totally agree with everything. Definitely will be hard to get people to switch. Also love the monorepo idea you mentioned. It should totally be possible to keep the benefits of a monorepo without the downsides of git submodules. So you should be able to open-source parts of a repo without open sourcing the whole thing. One of the benefits of building from scratch is that this is pretty straightforward. Also the other ideas you mentioned are really awesome. Thanks!
You're jerking yourself off with the web UI here. What I see on first load is essentially completely homogeneous, just a sea of black boxes with white text. As a purely aesthetic composition it's interesting to look at from afar. But in the context of presenting it to strangers it's hard to approach. Too much going on and hard to parse.
My impression with this space is that you'd need to fundraise startup-style, which I'm assuming you'll do, to catch up with everyone that is doing a similar thing.
The problem space and solution has been around for a while in big tech, and now there is a handful known products publicly known, and probably a couple dozen still secret ones. It is just now with AI/agents volume, there probably needs to be an easier solution for quick narrowly focused VCS views.
For filesystem mount, usually FUSE-FS, of a version control system to enable multiple viewers without transferring a lot of data see some current/previous implementations:
- Google: Piper via CitC (Clients in the Cloud) often used with Cider (web IDE)
- Meta: Sapling on EdenFS (from what I read, never worked there)
The main issue I see is with the site -- it just seems like a big blob of AI-generated text I need to understand what is going on. The cool part wasn't even shown off: your GitHub UI clone that you can get to from seeing the benchmark code.
FYI, I also think the 4-way arrows logo has been used before, and still might be in use. I tried searching, but I think I saw a multi-colored one, maybe in a UK-based IT corporate training company's class I attended.
Haha I wish, but I've been working on VCS's separate from git for a while now. Although I do love git, I've wondered for years before agents if something could be made using something different, rather than building something on top.
I'm also secretly a massive fan of Dr. Hipp and his work on FossilSCM [1]. I love a bunch of his design decisions there and wanted to apply them to a new system.
Agree we should definitely support offline flow. You can download the binary manually if you would like [1]. Although the offline/self-hosted flow isn't fully tested right now, would love some feedback on it if you're able to check it out!
The lazy mount is very interesting. This is similar to how google3 works at Google that I have not seen any similar implementation in open source so far.
Git sparse checkout is helpful but checking files out as they are needed is much more flexible and intuitive.
Microsoft VFS for Git / GVFS is the closest that I can think of.
There is room for this lazy mount idea to be built on top of Git
I would recommend just linking to a few sentences that say how Oak is different than Git, rather than a personal backstory. (https://oak.space/docs)
My initial reaction is if this is not something than could be built on top of Git, rather than replacing it. Describe the data model - what is a "commit", what is a "branch" ..., if the same as git, then why not reuse.
Ah thanks - I forgot to change the top link. In this case I think https://oak.space/oak/oak is probably more enticing to the community because they get to see what it actually looks like - so I've used that URL instead.
I am curious, how do you handle latency issues for on demand access? I saw you use FUSE (and FSKit), and from my experience it is pain to make filesystems in userspace work on-demand over WAN because a) latency, and variable RTT; and b) you can't saturate the wire and aggressively read ahead things, otherwise native apps will freeze, lag, or just make the UX unpleasant, especially if there are too many placeholder files, or large files with random jumps in them.
I think what makes FUSE/FSKit great here is that agents usually only need to see the file metadata + read a handful of actual files, rather than some applications needing read many things. If you're doing huge rewrites, this is a problem, but most tasks are usually somewhat small. Definitely is a problem that I've ran into though, we do cache aggressively to try to solve some of this, but it'll never be as fast as reading/writing directly to disk. We have benchmarks [1] if you want to take a look at how we're testing some of the performance there.
I have always wanted a version control system that was basically Emacs/Vim/Neovim's undo-tree[0] but persistent and social. Why do I have to manually talk to git? You are a computer, track every modification I make while editing and let me decide (or help me decide) on what a checkpoint is.
Seconding Jujutsu! I've been working to add Jujutsu support to basically every open-source tool and framework I use, including the agentic ones [0]. While it doesn't work for everyone, I've found it can really work for some people. (like myself)
It's absolutely great for keeping a bunch of exploratory changes alive, quick prototyping, etc. as I tend to do with basically every source I have on my machine. I don't have to think at all about the stuff I hate about git (babying the index, being careful to amend and etc. right the first time because undos are annoying, etc.)
is there some more information about DeltaDB? this seems to be an early access feature and not something available at the moment but I would be interested to learn more about it.
Back in the day, 2020, the effort to create a program/website/service was the prohibiting factor, which meant the sediment remained at the bottom of the barrel where it belonged.
Now, every brain fart is published as a finished product no one wanted.
Certainly an interesting project although I am wondering what makes the benefits mentioned agent specific? You have mentioned performance improvements which is great but in that case would it not just be a better vc than git in general? what perks only work with agents that wouldn't work with individuals?
Thank you! The bet we're making is that agents will need to work on tasks much faster and with more parallelism than humans do with Git right now so these performance metrics will matter more. Git is awesome for human work so I'm not sure these metrics really matter than much to people. But also for agents, worktrees are not the best (can't work on the same branch in multiple places) and also the speed at which branches/PRs are created, need to be merged, etc. will need to be way faster and simpler since keeping up-to-date with how fast things are being modified is really important.
What I want from a version system is to capture event in history not like changes as a files but as events that capture a process.
If I split a file in two I still want to be able to see blame correctly for the author of the function, not one file as freshly created and the other with a bunch of deletes. I wish commits could be folded into larger commits so that you can still capture the individual changes but also not see them by default when looking at the history of a file.
Just a more human centric perspective on change history where it captures the way we talk and think about changes.
"I wish commits could be folded into larger commits so that you can still capture the individual changes but also not see them by default when looking at the history of a file."
Fossil merges do this. More people need to use Fossil; it's got a ton of great ideas.
"If I split a file in two I still want to be able to see blame correctly for the author of the function, not one file as freshly created and the other with a bunch of deletes."
Now this is a good idea that I've never seen in a VCS.
> "If I split a file in two I still want to be able to see blame correctly for the author of the function, not one file as freshly created and the other with a bunch of deletes."
>
> Now this is a good idea that I've never seen in a VCS.
There's a reason no one has done that, the VCS would have to have a semantic understanding of what it's tracking. I'm sure that's possible, but I think would see extremely limited success. Honestly, it may have even been done for proprietary languages and VCS systems that have since faded into obscurity.
I'd settle for searching the git history for a particular regex/string and then running a blame on that.
1) An “easy” way to implement this would be to treat the original file as the parent to both files. You can add a new command “split” if needed to mark the new file as a fork of the existing file.
2) language sensitive version control seems like the next thing. We need like an LSP for VCSes.
If I run blame on the new file the will I see the commits made by the original writers? Will it find the same code if it was written independently? It’s not about find copies it about recording changes to a code base as an artifact and not to files. The closest git has is limited rename support.
Many things were forever until they suddenly died, but I think this is especially true for git.
I'm not saying this as a git hater, quite to the contrary. I think git is great. I also think git is an ill-fit for the majority of modern commercial software projects and there will be a breaking point where companies realize that and move on.
Git is great but if you really haven't found any reasons then you haven't looked at all. From large files to sub modules to hook permissions and file permissions... The list goes on and on about what where git falls short.
There's plenty of workarounds too, but that's what they are. Workarounds.
jj does not have large file or submodule support, but it does intend to in the future (you can read their design docs). Right now it's git compatible, so I'm not sure how 'permissions' would be stored compatibly, or what that means. I'm guessing ownership and xattrs
2. rebase based merge strategies - our team has 50+ devs across three continents merging into monorepo with teams maintaining submodules. By the time your merge request passes CI it has to be rebased. People are literally holding off on reviewing merge requests to make sure their own changes get in first
3. permissions for subdirectories/assets. some necessary code/modules are highly regulated and company secrets. Git cant lock certain directories based on who clones the repo
4. Agentic coding - if you don't commit then your changeset after each request is lost. JJ solves this. You could just say to commit after every request then squash the commits. But, I think this is an ergonomic argument
5. Maybe it's just my experience, but git-lfs is pretty annoying to manage on large teams and changing files to/from lfs. often easier to just delete and clone again
6. git blame on non-meaninful changes. Running a code linter to add/remove whitespace makes git blame return who ran the linter rather than who wrote the code
7. self-reported identity. every time we get new laptops (because they buy the cheapest POS) devs forget what they set for 'username'. so it ends up being 3-4 different identities with the same email
to be fair, #2 exists because monorepos and submodules are somewhat antithetical concepts. A monorepo is supposed tobe the single source of truth for the codebase, while submodules are pointers to external repos with their own history. That alone will increase the source of churn for teams that are constantly merging.
2. That has the smells of a wrong code architecture. If change request leads to unneeded code conflicts, you need to rework your code architecture.
3. That’s valid, but why not create libraries out of those modules?
4. Valid. But I think the issue is on the agent side. Git has already all the features to make those happen, it’s the agent that is not integrated with git.
5…
6. Either than sweeping changes (adding a formatter, changing config,…) There’s no need for formatting changes to be its own commit in the main repo. I usually add a check to prevent inconsistent formatting.
7. The git history has the previous username and email recorded alongside each commit.
1. Ease of use. Other VCS have more consistent command line interfaces; Git's interface has to be studied. In practice, people end up using GUIs with missing functionality and then end up searching for help, and a lot of real experts come to rely on powerful wrappers like Magit, LazyGit, or JJ.
(Compare to Mercurial, Fossil or Git; those systems have consistent and usable interfaces. There's much less demand for wrappers or LLM tooling since they're easy to use already.)
2. Preservation of history. Two common commands - git rebate and git push -f - cause commit history to be lost, sometimes permanently. ("Just be careful" and "Just don't use those commands" are useful pieces of advice for an individual, and virtually impossible to enforce over groups.)
3. Conflict resolution. Git forces the user to resolve conflicts ASAP so we often lose information about A. What the conflict exactly was, and B. How the individual resolved it. Most VCS have this issue; JJ allows you to commit the conflict and solve it in a separate commit, which is nice.
1. Usually people have no mental model about versioning other than “draft-1, draft-final, final, final2, final-final,…’. Because they don’t care about requirements and design decisions documentation, auditing changes, and release management. Git provides a set of tools for solving those. Wrappers are for when you have your own workflow for those needs and have a good understanding of git.
3. The goal of writing code is to have working software. Conflict messages are like compiler warnings, better have them than getting errors slipping by unnoticed. If A conflict with B, the root cause is often a design conflict, which means that the design of the software is inconsistent.
The conflict only matters as long as it’s not been solved. For each commit, the design of the software need to be consistent, and the succession of commit describe the evolution of the design. A is not lost, B is not lost in the case of a merge and may stay for a long time when rebasing. C which solves the difference between A and B (and may replace B) is also consistent. I don’t care about inconsistency.
"Majority" is massive stretch. There are 2 main pain points:
* monorepo megarepos - but you kinda need system built from scratch that sacrifices a lot in other places to handle that in the first place
* media asset heavy repositories - again, different paradigm. Stuff that make Git great like full local history just become impossible to do sensibly when amount of changes per day is hundreds of megabytes.
Most projects don't git that. And for majority git + LFS is enough.
How’s it an ill fit? Outside of large monorepo things, which are not the majority of modern commercial software projects, the main complaint I hear is the learning curve. But LLMs should be addressing that fairly well.
Planning on some monorepo features soon that should solve some submodule problems but haven't approached yet. I have some new ideas here. And yes, no separate LFS system!
I'm a little confused by this but I assume you're talking about marking files for LFS (.gitattributes)? For us, we chunk every file (even if it's a single chunk) so every file is stored in the same way -- it's just data to us. But let me know if I got your question wrong.
So the problem that LFS solves is that sometimes you have large files that you a) don't want to download by default, e.g. old binary executables, b) are big enough that you want to serve them from a more efficient source e.g. S3, or c) are large and not needed forever, so you want to be able to delete them one day.
LFS "solves" those but it does it really badly. Really really badly. I've probably forgotten all the ways, but at least:
1. It conflates the content with the storage mechanism. You can't change retrospectively how the files are stored, even though the only thing you really need to be immutable is their content.
2. It requires you to actively set up git-lfs, otherwise it silently does the wrong thing.
3. Not exactly LFS's fault but I have yet to find a forge (GitHub, Gitlab etc.) which exposes the LFS stored files in a sane way. Last time I tried it was basically impossible to delete old files, and you needed a lot of extra work to even enable LFS in the place.
Yes Lore looks awesome! I was previously working on a VCS for gamedevs -- that space definitely needs something better than Perforce haha. My comment would be that I think you need to nail a new GitHub + Git to really be successful in the space and I'm not sure Epic is focused on this. I wonder if Lore will turn out similar to Unity Version Control which is very specialized to Unity workflows or something more general. Definitely love what they're doing though.
I wish we as a society would stop using random words for products. "Slacked about Oak, but they need in Fizzle. The deck's in Slate, the assets are in Vault, the timeline's in Pulse, the copy's in Quill, the build's in Forge, and the launch party's already in Ember."
What alternative would you suggest? "Sent a message in our enterprise chat application about the version control system that our engineering team sometimes uses (no, not that one, the other one) but they need it in the project management app that our Design team uses (good luck requesting access from IT, we have more than a dozen project management tools in our catalog)"
The solution is to always add a second name. Like people, projects could have short name and full names. Could be organization (Apache Spark), could use type (Oak Versioncontrol), could be longer name (Violet Spring). Then can use short name internally, and full name globally. I like the type name cause tells what it is.
seems like an interesting idea. the only friction would be to get people to use it instead of git, however i believe it will happen slowly, more people trying it and recommending it to others.
There are git clients for perforce, hg, svn and so on[1]. Oak' developer (or the community) could always develop a git frontend for users who prefer that .
Totally agree. This is going to be the hardest dev tool to get people to switch, but we're trying! I think there's going to be many more players in this space in the next year or so. It'll be interesting to see what shakes out.
It's kind of like replacing Wordpress. Sure, you can make a better alternative. But replacing an entrenched player that has been there for at least a decade will be almost impossible.
I love jj! Martin is really awesome and love his work. I know they're using a VFS backing inside Google for their monorepo, wonder if we'll get some of those cool features on the outside.
* The core idea sounds interesting. Make it the first paragraph, not paragraph seven.
* Spend more words describing what makes Oak different.
* "I built a version control system in my free-time called Jam". You probably didn't name your free time. "I built a version control system, called Jam, in my free time."
Just "I built a version control system called Jam". The free-time thing is good for a history page but the homepage needs to tell the important part (you've got history and expertise in this subject) and then move onto what the vision is for Oak and what kind of help you need.
Lots of self-promotion, but no concrete comparisons where this tool does a better job than git.
The only thing to go on is this single sentence: "With virtual mounts, agents locally and in the cloud no longer need a full copy of a repo to get working."
> For the first 100 users that subscribe to a paid plan I will send you a personalized e-ink display
I don't understand anyone who feels incentivized by this. Brogrammer 2.0 is weird.
Since this project hasn't appeared on HN before and is obviously of interest to people, I've taken the liberty of turning your post into a Show HN (which is the convention for sharing your work on Hacker News - https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html). I used the text from your blog post that explains what the project actually is - this is the bit we need to lead with, to stanch all the "I can't tell what this is" comments.
I hope this is ok! If you prefer different text at the top, let us know at hn@ycombinator.com.
Models know git because there's a monstrous amount of git in their training data. Models never heard of a new thing "for agents", so you have to teach them to use it via skills and docs. Models can, of course, follow documentation, so there's nothing stopping them from using the new thing...but, the new thing "for agents" starts the race well behind the known thing that was built for humans a decade or two ago and has huge amounts of training data baked into every model.
I'm not saying nobody should make new things (an accusation I've gotten when saying something similar about a previous "for agents" thing), of course people should make new things. I'm saying that when I see "for agents", I think, "prove it". Agents don't have trouble with git, so there's gotta be some kind of pain point about using git with agents that I'm unaware of that this solves somehow (but isn't expressed on the page) or this isn't actually for agents, it's just a project someone wanted to do (and that's also fine!). But, if the latter, "for agents" is merely marketing and I'm not interested.
There’s some mention about performance, which is great, but the performance of git isn’t a bottleneck for agents.
There’s some mention about token use being reduced, which is great, but how have they achieved that vs gits porcelain modes. And why does token count require a whole new VCS, and thus incompatibilities with all the established git ecosystems?
I really want to find reasons to like this but it’s probably some of the worst product marketing I’ve seen. And something this significant really does need to sell itself hard if you’re going to get enough people in a project team to agree to switch away from git
But why? Why would I want to like a project which seems to invent problems rather than solve any? I don’t want to like this.
Eh, it depends on the workflow. Especially if you have certain stack based workflows. Worktrees are kinda half solution here but depending on the repo type and if you are dealing with LFS or sparse checkouts, I've had agents struggle really hard to work through a stack or rebase things without a lot of thrashing or being IO bound by just stumbling into operations in a boneheaded way. Now I have AGENTS.md/skills/hooks gaurdrails littered about to try and work around things.
I would normally assume there's 0 percent chance that `git` (the binary) is a significant impact on LLM based devel. The same applies to git, the protocol/format/tree.
I'd love to hear about what makes the workflow you have, where any part of git becomes a noticable proportion of the process? Unless you mean your LLM just can't figure out how to use git?
The tool is called gitnow. it is honestly quite simple, just create a project, add the repositories you want and get to building. I've found having another claude chat or whatever use the tool to great success coupled with zellij, but could also be zed, tmux or whatever.
Secondly it also pretty much solves the problem of the agent dumping memory files everywhere, they now basically have a scratch space that is theirs, where they can keep their tasks, and just update the repositories as needed.
Use gn the shell after eval if you use it, it will actually invoke cd, instead of creating a subshell.
https://github.com/kjuulh/gitnow
Since it's early, here a couple of things I'd loooove git to be and it's not, maybe you can consider to go in this direction and, if there are many more like me, get a large user base: - The private/public quantum shouldn't be a repo but something more fluid within a repo. A public repo should be able to have private sub-directories, files, etc. If should be fluid in this regard, so big projects could open-source <i>some</i> features, not all. Right now it's all or nothing, and that closes the doors to many big closed projects. - env variables. If you could make its usage easier and more seamless within oak, that could convince many (me included). It's really a headache to deal with env vars and git, and shouldn't be the case. - Collaboration for agents beyond PRs. I don't know exactly what's the flavor for this, but I know that fundamentally the create PR/merge circle of git is not how it should be.
Great initiative and good luck!
The problem space and solution has been around for a while in big tech, and now there is a handful known products publicly known, and probably a couple dozen still secret ones. It is just now with AI/agents volume, there probably needs to be an easier solution for quick narrowly focused VCS views.
For filesystem mount, usually FUSE-FS, of a version control system to enable multiple viewers without transferring a lot of data see some current/previous implementations:
- Google: Piper via CitC (Clients in the Cloud) often used with Cider (web IDE)
- Meta: Sapling on EdenFS (from what I read, never worked there)
- Rational Clearcase, anyone else remember mounting VOBs?
The main issue I see is with the site -- it just seems like a big blob of AI-generated text I need to understand what is going on. The cool part wasn't even shown off: your GitHub UI clone that you can get to from seeing the benchmark code.
FYI, I also think the 4-way arrows logo has been used before, and still might be in use. I tried searching, but I think I saw a multi-colored one, maybe in a UK-based IT corporate training company's class I attended.
[1] https://fossil-scm.org
[1] https://github.com/oakdotspace/oak/releases
Git sparse checkout is helpful but checking files out as they are needed is much more flexible and intuitive.
Microsoft VFS for Git / GVFS is the closest that I can think of.
There is room for this lazy mount idea to be built on top of Git
And there we go.
From hacker news guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My initial reaction is if this is not something than could be built on top of Git, rather than replacing it. Describe the data model - what is a "commit", what is a "branch" ..., if the same as git, then why not reuse.
(The submitted title was "Git is forever. I'm building Oak anyways." and the submitted URL was https://oak.space/blog.)
[1] https://oak.space/oak/benchmarks
[0]: https://i.sstatic.net/4vbd9.png
It's absolutely great for keeping a bunch of exploratory changes alive, quick prototyping, etc. as I tend to do with basically every source I have on my machine. I don't have to think at all about the stuff I hate about git (babying the index, being careful to amend and etc. right the first time because undos are annoying, etc.)
Does not support LFS or submodules though.
[0]: https://github.com/LoganDark/get-shit-done/tree/jj-vcs
https://zed.dev/deltadb
Edit: this was actually announced at a very recent blog post (11 july 2026 so just 11 days ago): https://zed.dev/blog/introducing-deltadb
The blogpost also has some more relevant information as well.
Now, every brain fart is published as a finished product no one wanted.
If I split a file in two I still want to be able to see blame correctly for the author of the function, not one file as freshly created and the other with a bunch of deletes. I wish commits could be folded into larger commits so that you can still capture the individual changes but also not see them by default when looking at the history of a file.
Just a more human centric perspective on change history where it captures the way we talk and think about changes.
Fossil merges do this. More people need to use Fossil; it's got a ton of great ideas.
"If I split a file in two I still want to be able to see blame correctly for the author of the function, not one file as freshly created and the other with a bunch of deletes."
Now this is a good idea that I've never seen in a VCS.
There's a reason no one has done that, the VCS would have to have a semantic understanding of what it's tracking. I'm sure that's possible, but I think would see extremely limited success. Honestly, it may have even been done for proprietary languages and VCS systems that have since faded into obscurity.
I'd settle for searching the git history for a particular regex/string and then running a blame on that.
2) language sensitive version control seems like the next thing. We need like an LSP for VCSes.
`git split`
Something that I enjoy with jujutsu is that the semantics is the tool itself. ONCE you do that, the rest become easier!
Many things were forever until they suddenly died, but I think this is especially true for git.
I'm not saying this as a git hater, quite to the contrary. I think git is great. I also think git is an ill-fit for the majority of modern commercial software projects and there will be a breaking point where companies realize that and move on.
There's plenty of workarounds too, but that's what they are. Workarounds.
2. rebase based merge strategies - our team has 50+ devs across three continents merging into monorepo with teams maintaining submodules. By the time your merge request passes CI it has to be rebased. People are literally holding off on reviewing merge requests to make sure their own changes get in first
3. permissions for subdirectories/assets. some necessary code/modules are highly regulated and company secrets. Git cant lock certain directories based on who clones the repo
4. Agentic coding - if you don't commit then your changeset after each request is lost. JJ solves this. You could just say to commit after every request then squash the commits. But, I think this is an ergonomic argument
5. Maybe it's just my experience, but git-lfs is pretty annoying to manage on large teams and changing files to/from lfs. often easier to just delete and clone again
6. git blame on non-meaninful changes. Running a code linter to add/remove whitespace makes git blame return who ran the linter rather than who wrote the code
7. self-reported identity. every time we get new laptops (because they buy the cheapest POS) devs forget what they set for 'username'. so it ends up being 3-4 different identities with the same email
Those are just my complaints lately
2. That has the smells of a wrong code architecture. If change request leads to unneeded code conflicts, you need to rework your code architecture.
3. That’s valid, but why not create libraries out of those modules?
4. Valid. But I think the issue is on the agent side. Git has already all the features to make those happen, it’s the agent that is not integrated with git.
5…
6. Either than sweeping changes (adding a formatter, changing config,…) There’s no need for formatting changes to be its own commit in the main repo. I usually add a check to prevent inconsistent formatting.
7. The git history has the previous username and email recorded alongside each commit.
(Compare to Mercurial, Fossil or Git; those systems have consistent and usable interfaces. There's much less demand for wrappers or LLM tooling since they're easy to use already.)
2. Preservation of history. Two common commands - git rebate and git push -f - cause commit history to be lost, sometimes permanently. ("Just be careful" and "Just don't use those commands" are useful pieces of advice for an individual, and virtually impossible to enforce over groups.)
3. Conflict resolution. Git forces the user to resolve conflicts ASAP so we often lose information about A. What the conflict exactly was, and B. How the individual resolved it. Most VCS have this issue; JJ allows you to commit the conflict and solve it in a separate commit, which is nice.
2. https://git-scm.com/docs/git-reflog
It’s very hard to loose data in git.
3. The goal of writing code is to have working software. Conflict messages are like compiler warnings, better have them than getting errors slipping by unnoticed. If A conflict with B, the root cause is often a design conflict, which means that the design of the software is inconsistent.
The conflict only matters as long as it’s not been solved. For each commit, the design of the software need to be consistent, and the succession of commit describe the evolution of the design. A is not lost, B is not lost in the case of a merge and may stay for a long time when rebasing. C which solves the difference between A and B (and may replace B) is also consistent. I don’t care about inconsistency.
* monorepo megarepos - but you kinda need system built from scratch that sacrifices a lot in other places to handle that in the first place * media asset heavy repositories - again, different paradigm. Stuff that make Git great like full local history just become impossible to do sensibly when amount of changes per day is hundreds of megabytes.
Most projects don't git that. And for majority git + LFS is enough.
Awesome. How does one decide which files should be stored externally, and manage that? And where is that decision stored?
LFS "solves" those but it does it really badly. Really really badly. I've probably forgotten all the ways, but at least:
1. It conflates the content with the storage mechanism. You can't change retrospectively how the files are stored, even though the only thing you really need to be immutable is their content.
2. It requires you to actively set up git-lfs, otherwise it silently does the wrong thing.
3. Not exactly LFS's fault but I have yet to find a forge (GitHub, Gitlab etc.) which exposes the LFS stored files in a sane way. Last time I tried it was basically impossible to delete old files, and you needed a lot of extra work to even enable LFS in the place.
https://epicgames.github.io/lore/explanation/system-design/ if not
> You can work on many tasks in parallel without needing to download everything or fight worktrees.
What does "download everything" even mean? Why would you "fight worktrees"?
[1] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-and-Other-Systems-Git-as-...
* The core idea sounds interesting. Make it the first paragraph, not paragraph seven.
* Spend more words describing what makes Oak different.
* "I built a version control system in my free-time called Jam". You probably didn't name your free time. "I built a version control system, called Jam, in my free time."
The only thing to go on is this single sentence: "With virtual mounts, agents locally and in the cloud no longer need a full copy of a repo to get working."
> For the first 100 users that subscribe to a paid plan I will send you a personalized e-ink display
I don't understand anyone who feels incentivized by this. Brogrammer 2.0 is weird.
I hope this is ok! If you prefer different text at the top, let us know at hn@ycombinator.com.
I found the section titled “Local feature branches. Server main. One squash.” most interesting.