[squeak-dev] Small commits are [bad|good] (was: The Trunk: EToys-mt.368.mcz)
David T. Lewis
lewis at mail.msen.com
Fri Nov 22 18:51:37 UTC 2019
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:47:31PM -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
> > So it turns out that good versioning tools do not need to be slow
> > and resource hungry. I guess it also shows that a small amount of
> > brilliant design goes a long way when it comes to performance.
> Nonsense. You haven't magically escaped the laws of software physics.
I'll have to concede the point. The last time I tried to defy the laws of
physics, I was on a motorcyle and it did not end well ;-)
> were using github, which is run in a datacenter, right? Dump enough into
> your git repository, and your use-cases will eventually start to slow down
> in performance.
> I am curious how you're "using git" though because when I accessed a git
> project through Squeak, it was NOT fast, and it created a gigantic
> directory tree in my squeak directory which also slowed down my daily
> backup job tremendously. The directory names were hugely long and it was
I use /usr/bin/git from the command line when I want to do something, and
I use google to figure out what to do. For visualizing the branch history,
I use some sort of windows client (I forget what it is, I'm away from the
office). The company involved has a private github server, and I do everything
in a local repository, pushing and pulling to github as I go.
> This is why I won't start actively using git until I can make a transparent
> MCGitRepository via their v4 API (GraphQL). I haven't looked at the Schema
> yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it, alone, is larger than the entire
> _implementation_ code of Monticello. I'd say Avi's was a brilliant design,
> for sure.
> - Chris
More information about the Squeak-dev