TechNom (nobody)

Gitlab is very complex and a heavy resource hog. You probably don’t need it. Most small to medium enterprises can comfortably host their projects on lightweight forgejo or gitea (speaking from experience). They even have functionality similar to github actions. If you need anything more complex, you are better off integrating another self hosted external service to the mix.

This is clearly intended as an alternative to submodules.

An alternative, not a replacement. Vdm is specifically designed to track code dependencies. There are use cases like monorepos where vdm won’t work.

Neither does Git though. I’m not really sure I follow your point.

Git does track submodule history unlike vdm.

By default, vdm sync also removes the local .git directories for each git remote, so as to not upset your local Git tree.

Git submodules don’t delete those .git directories. It uses them.

If you want to change the version/revision of a remote, just update your spec file and run vdm sync again.

This is not how git submodules or subtrees work.

vdm does depends on git being installed if you specify any git remote types

Support more than just git and file types, and make file better

Git submodules and subtrees don’t support anything other than git remotes.

Yes. I saw that. I was giving you my assessment based on the rest of the technical details in that readme. It doesn’t look like vdm is dealing with any part of the dependency repos (.git directories) other than to download them. In fact, they even mention deleting those .git directories. Please let me know if you think I misinterpreted any of those details.

It didn’t look like a submodule reimplementation to me. Subtree is more of a submodule reimplementation. This is more like a language-agnostic package manager (like cargo, npm, etc) that downloads and caches source packages.

For anyone looking to learn git, the official book and site are thorough and exceptional. You can even download the eBook for free. While there’s no harm in using other sources to learn git, don’t use them as an alternative to the canonical source.

I wonder if these trillion dollar companies offer support contracts for astroturfing on social media on their behalf. I can’t think of any other way so many people are supporting their sociopathic attitude.

The devs don’t take an issue with the ticket being filed. They’re irritated by one particular reply which sounds like “My million dollar product depends on this bug fix. Please do that for me”. MS isn’t offering a solution. They’re asking for one.

To be fair MS offers an amount for the fix. Most companies just bully the devs instead. However, I don’t think it’s quite fair (though legal) to offer one time payments for a core library that they use.

Those same companies tell you that their products that you paid for don’t belong to you. You are just buying a license to use them. Sadly, this asinine concept is spreading even to hardware markets.

I think it’s fair to ask them to take their own bitter pill. They should also invest without owning.

That was only a very rough version. His original plan was to use it as a backend for other VCS. Torvalds handed over the maintainership of the project to Junio Hamano after about 4 months. Much of what we know today as git are contributions from him and others.

None of this is to say that Torvalds didn’t invent it. He invented the content addressed object storage format. But it’s important to understand the actual history of git’s evolution.

The story behind git is very dramatic. You should read it.

The hack is still not fully understood and is being analyzed. It doesn’t help that Github suspended everything, including the original maintainer’s account (who is believed to be a victim of social engineering).

Anyway, you will eventually see a post mortem. I’m willing to bet that it’s going to be as phenomenal as the hack itself. The case and its investigation is going to be a classic case study for all security researchers and security-minded users. Anyway, I doubt that the attackers will ever be found. Jia Tan, Jigar Kumar and others are going to remain as ghosts like Satoshi Nakamoto.

They really ought to have version masking like in Gentoo portage.

You never reach a phase when you can confidently say that you understand git. But it’s certainly possible to go from “When something goes wrong, I just delete the repo and clone it again” to “Aha! Now I can deal with most of the issues”.

Mine was when I realized that git commands come in two flavors. Those that deal with commits as snapshots (commit, checkout, switch, reset, etc) and those that deal with commits as changes/diffs/deltas (merge, rebase, cherrypick, revert, etc). (Note: This isn’t about how git stores commits on disk). I believe that this is actually the main source of confusion for beginner and intermediate git users.

That blame must go to github. Not Torvalds.

possibly several parents, like 8 parents

Fun fact. Such merges with more than 2 parents are called ‘octopus merges’. The Linux repo has a single merge with 66 parents that Torvalds named the ‘Cthulhu merge’.

Git never deletes a commit that is less than 90 days old.

On its own, that is. Not if you do a git gc.

Deleting a branch removes a reference to a commit, but the commits in the branch are still there.

but you can see them using “reflog” related commands

Reflog - one of the most underrated git commands that has the potential to save your life some day. At least one team member must learn it.

Another aha moment was learning that an easy way to squash commits is just to do a git reset followed by git commit -am “whatever”

You can do that in a single step instead with git commit -a --amend.

Peter Thiel is insolent enough to say out loud what these companies practice - ‘competition is for losers’. These quasi-monopolies aren’t here to provide the best value - quite the opposite. They want to kill all competition by any dirty tactic and then use the diminished choice to wring the customers of every penny they have. They want to extract maximum revenue by making sure that their inferior solution is the only option customers have.

This problem isn’t solvable by market regulation alone. The world has enough a*****es around who will climb to the top of successful companies and find ways around the regulations. They’re being as bad as they can, while skirting the limits of what’s illegal. My main gripe is with the engineers, programmers, technicians and all technical creators who enable these scumbags. It’s not hard to see that supporting a proprietary solution amounts to yielding the consumers’ bargaining power to a monopoly. Despite that, they keep making these choices. For example, it’s not uncommon to hear senior engineering managers or technical-lead level employees saying, “I know that Chrome is spyware and I want to quit it. But this <stupid-webservice-at-office> works only on Chrome”. I feel like screaming at them that if they’re too incompetent to demand a change at the level they’re at, they’re in the wrong profession.

If you’re a technical creator, your choices matter. It affects a lot more people than you alone. But more often than not, I see such creators surrendering principles in exchange for convenience. They hold as much responsibility as the market-abusers in making the world the way it is now.

Interesting that they started dictating what you can and can’t do with YOUR program! Consumer rights are a joke to these quasi-monopolies.

CUDA is an API to run high performance compute code on Nvidia GPUs. CUDA is proprietary. So CUDA programs run only on Nvidia GPUs. Open alternatives like vulkan compute and opencl aren’t as popular as CUDA.

Translation layers are interface software that allow CUDA programs to run on non-Nvidia GPUs. But creating such layers require a bit of reverse engineering of CUDA programs. But they are prohibiting this now. They want to ensure that all the CUDA programs in the world are limited to using Nvidia GPUs alone - classic vendor lock-in by using EULA.

What’s ironic is that rebases aren’t as hard as many consider it to be. Once you’ve done it a couple of times, you just do it everyday as easily as you commit changes.