[barrystaes]

I would simply argue that the “offline” editing is a people-problem and hence van not be solved using automation. People shall find a way to break/bypass the automation/system.

The only “offline editing” that I allow on human text documents is having people add comments. So not editing, no automated merging.

For “offline editing” that I allow on automation (source code) is GIT which intentionally does not pretend to solve the merge, it just shows revisions. The merge is an action supervised by humans or specialised automation on a “best guess” effort and still needs reviews and testing to verify success.

[josephg]

Yes I agree. But remember: but git will automatically merge concurrent changes in most cases - since most concurrent changes aren’t in conflict. You’re arguing you want to see & review the merged output anyway - which I agree with.

Ideally, I want to be able to replace git with something that is built on CRDTs. When branches have no conflicts, CRDTs already work fine - since you merge, run tests, and push when you’re happy.

But right now CRDTs are too optimistic. If two branches edit the same line, we do a best-effort merge and move on. Instead in this case, the algorithm should explicitly mark the region as “in conflict” and needing human review, just like git does. Then humans can manually review the marked ranges (or, as others have suggested, ask an llm to do so or something.). And once they’re happy with the result, clear the conflicting range markers and push.

[hinkley]

The tricky thing about “most” is that it means more than half, but people tend to treat it like almost all.

I would agree that git works more than half the time.

Merge resolution is a problem so hard that even otherwise capable developers fuck it up regularly. And on a large team made of people who intermittently fuck up, we start getting into and aggregate failure rate that feels like a lot.

The whole idea with CRDTs was to make something humans couldn’t fuck up, but that seems unlikely to happen. There’s some undiscovered Gödel out there who needs to tell us why.

[joakims]

I think it's just a UX problem. Once that is solved, which I believe is definitely possible, both CRDTs and git can be made much more user friendly. I'm not saying it's easy, because it hasn't been solved yet, but I don't think the right people have been working on it. UX is the domain of designers, not engineers.

[hinkley]

I think we are sitting at about 75% on one of those problems that will go asymptotic at 90%.

And that’s if you swap the default diff algorithm for one of the optional ones. I’ve used patience for years but someone tweaked it and called it “histogram” when I wasn’t looking.

[SkiFire13]

> Ideally, I want to be able to replace git with something that is built on CRDTs. When branches have no conflicts, CRDTs already work fine - since you merge, run tests, and push when you’re happy.

How is this different than git's automatic merging? Or another compatible algorithm

[josephg]

In the happy case? Its no different. But in the case where two offline edits happen at the same location, Git's merging knows to flag the conflict for human review. Thats the part that needs to be fixed.

[SkiFire13]

It's not clear to me what you want to replace from git then, it seems to me that you rather want to take concepts from git.

[josephg]

I want a tool with the best parts of both git and a crdt:

- From CRDTs I want support for realtime collaborative editing. This could even include non-code content (like databases). And some developer tools could use the stream of code changes to implement hot-module reloading and live typechecking.

- From git I want .. well, everything git does. Branches. Pull requests. Conflict detection when branches merge. Issue tracking. (This isn't part of git, but it would be easy to add using json-like CRDTs!)

We can do almost all of that today. The one part that's seriously missing is merge conflicts.