DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
48% Positive
Analyzed from 1045 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#version#git#docs#everything#code#control#data#binary#having#need
Discussion (17 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Well, yeah. But it's hard. Also, git is not the solution to this, it's just the screwdriver you have in your hand right now.
That's the idea of Epiq: https://ljtn.github.io/epiq/
> In my view, the main obstacle here is that without serious dedication, the user experience for humans would be a major downgrade. This isn’t insurmountable, but it would be a lot of work.
I think Epiq does a decent job of addressing this.
Take a look at the second animation on the page above. It even lets you "scrub" your way through the timeline to very quickly glance at what an agent (or junior developer) did to your code recently.
Lore looked interesting for this purpose. https://github.com/EpicGames/lore
Its private for now, but here is printout of help: http://borg.uu3.net/~borg/?dot
Disk space is far from cheap when the value of what's being stored is basically zero.
You can version everything today with something like ZFS snapshoting - and very quickly realize hundreds of gigabytes of noise aren't worth keeping.
I think you can create git plugins to show diffs in different formats for certain file-types (or even open a 3rd party tool to let you visualize it), but it is a lot of work. Most productivity tools don't have anything of the sort.
If you just care about storing the file git LFS + manual text-changelog per binary file works well, but it is annoying to get everyone on your team to work in this workflow (heck, getting everyone and all automation scripts to install LFS is already a pain).
Meaningful deltas and meaningful merges are actually a problem set that is totally and utterly disjointed from keeping the underlying change history. Deltas and merges can always be computed independently of the underlying storage format for versioned data. Git could have indicriminately used binary deltas for file storage and would still work the same on every higher layer.
This worked pretty well for the team I'm in. Design docs in Google Docs were really hard to keep in sync with decisions and not properly agent accessible. Initially, we were concerned lack of comments would be an issue, but this didn't really came true - a Slack channel does a good enough job. With this flow, the design author makes a decision and review results, agent propagates it to individual areas, and from those to tasks (those are in MD too), and then copies descriptions to Jira. No more "we changed a thing but missed one place that depends on it", or at least not as bad as before.
We're doing the design docs in MD thing, but are you saying you've gone a step further and have the backlog represented in git too?
Imagine your git history filled with commits from project managers where every little change in requirements and docs has its own commit. We've tried that and ended up having to rebase our branches multiple times a day while we lost the overview of code changes completely.
The main issue that code can live in multiple branches while development but you can't apply that to docs and requirements where you need to have one centralized source of truth for everyone.
I think we will start to see more adaptation from collaboration tools to provide/accept the info in text format making it suitable for agents as a working solution. Meanwhile, I've seen that having two repos (One for Code and one for docs) is the best solution for the current tools available
The most you can do is to accelerste subworkflows and review as hell.
Noone wants middle term maintenance nightmares or unreliable code. Can look good the first month, that's it.
I think they have been overselling it so much but you need to know exactly what you are doing and I think for generating code they are pretty bad. And they will improve as they sniff some more data but that's it. Something new, something LLMs do pretty bad.
The crux of what OP wants seems to be transparent interfaces to the data store backing each of these services. Version control would be about tracking changes when this data mutates, which seems somewhat orthogonal to this stated need.
I wonder whether a nice solution to this would be to have a distributed architecture where each node can publish / subscribe to updates and maintain a local copy it operates on, with conflict resolution for eventual consistency.
PS: Checkout Perkeep for a take on aggregating all your data in one place.
It's built on top of a content-hashable XML-ish data modeling language called CSTML: https://docs.bablr.org/guides/cstml
Binary document support isn't done yet, but it is planned.