[forrestthewoods]

Ehhh can’t say I’m a fan of folder remapping. It gets a little too auto-magical and since all tools access the file system directly different users can see different things. That’s just begging for bugs and “works on my machine”.

I’m moderately confident the correct path is monorepo + centralization + virtual filesystem. Not every tool plays nice with VFS but at this point most do.

The D in DVCS is almost entirely a waste. Source control systems should, imho, trivially support petabytes of history and terabyte scale clones.

[com2kid]

I haven't seen a virtual filesystem overlaid on top of a monorepo before, do you have any examples of what that looks like?

Semi-related, I try to use symlink shenanigans in git to share common files between monorepo projects w/o using 3rd party tooling, but my latest attempt worked on Windows but the symlink fell apart when the repo was pulled down on a Mac!

Not the OS that I thought would have issues. :)

[forrestthewoods]

> I haven't seen a virtual filesystem overlaid on top of a monorepo before, do you have any examples of what that looks like?

https://github.com/facebook/sapling

[alexvoda]

The Distributed part is definitely not a waste. Some people have different workflows from yours and depend on it heavily.

[forrestthewoods]

Tell me more. When is the D relevant? When is it super critical?

Working offline is distinct from distributed. In practice almost all development is defacto centralized on GitHub (or other central host).

> In software development, distributed version control (also known as distributed revision control) is a form of version control in which the complete codebase, including its full history, is mirrored on every developer's computer.

That’s a super mega anti-feature to me. Git still sucks for large binary files which is an insane limitation.

[alexvoda]

Yes, most development is de-facto centralized on GitHub/GitLab/SourceHut/BitBucket/etc.

The Linux kernel is not, and Git was designed by the creator of the Linux kernel to serve the needs of the Linux kernel developer community. And I am certain they are not the only ones with that workflow.

[forrestthewoods]

We agree.

Git makes fundamental design choices that are (maybe possibly but not necessarily) good for the Linux kernel. They’re objectively bad and problematic for the majority of dev work. Which makes it really fucking shitty that the industry standardized on a tool that is bad for standard workflows.