Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Introduces GVFS (Git Virtual File System) (microsoft.com)
Saeed Noursalehi, principal program manager at Microsoft, writes on a blog post: We've been working hard on a solution that allows the Git client to scale to repos of any size. Today, we're introducing GVFS (Git Virtual File System), which virtualizes the file system beneath your repo and makes it appear as though all the files in your repo are present, but in reality only downloads a file the first time it is opened. GVFS also actively manages how much of the repo Git has to consider in operations like checkout and status, since any file that has not been hydrated can be safely ignored. And because we do this all at the file system level, your IDEs and build tools don't need to change at all! In a repo that is this large, no developer builds the entire source tree. Instead, they typically download the build outputs from the most recent official build, and only build a small portion of the sources related to the area they are modifying. Therefore, even though there are over 3 million files in the repo, a typical developer will only need to download and use about 50-100K of those files. With GVFS, this means that they now have a Git experience that is much more manageable: clone now takes a few minutes instead of 12+ hours, checkout takes 30 seconds instead of 2-3 hours, and status takes 4-5 seconds instead of 10 minutes. And we're working on making those numbers even better.
There aren't THAT many repos with over 3 million files in them.
The great majority of projects I've been on have been around the 100k-300k range and doing a build (to properly test the product) required ALL of them.
And even then, once you've got all of them the first time, GIT does the diffing automatically so it "scales" already.
Maybe MS could put some of their vast R&D efforts to to something more useful... like having their free Visual Studio Code editor handle files bigger than 1gb?
The whole point of git is that you have identical copy on your machine. Why take away git's biggest advantage?
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Then you had a piss-poor release engineer who didn't understand how to construct config specs based on a stable baseline, label & promote stable builds regularly, and use clearmake properly, or manage dependencies and allow you to do a clean, fast local build.
I love git, and I work with it daily, and the monorepo craze baffles the shit out of me, to be honest. But I used and supported ClearCase for 14 years at a large financial services company, and I can assure you that the problems you're complaining about are not limitations of the tool - they are limitations of your team's release engineers. ClearCase has many failings, but the issues you're describing simply reflect poor implementation and design choices.
It stemmed from fundamental concepts cribbed from Apollo's DSEE environment. HP's acquisition of Apollo prompted what would then become the ClearCase team to leave Apollo/HP and form Pure, then they combined with Atria to form PureAtria, then Rational acquired PureAtria, and then IBM acquired Rational -- so ClearCase was a thing long before it was IBM software, and the features you're griping about were extant long before the IBM acquisition. The IBM era mostly saw them continue to focus on jamming ClearCase into their "Application Lifecycle Management" toolset, Rational Team Concert, wrapping everything in a ghastly blue Eclipse RCP client, and making it more of a pain in the ass to use.
Dynamic views as you're talking about were not - and never were - intended for use across WANs, their Admin & Deploy guides specifically stated that it required a fast connection to a local server. If you wanted WAN connectivity, you either used RTC (Rational Team Client) to pull web views, or you used snapshot views, or you ponied up for MultiSite licenses and set up a sync scheme so that each site could have local copy on a VOB & View server they had a fast connection to.
Again - poor implementation by your release team. It's like complaining that a hammer makes a giant hole in the drywall when you put screws in with it - it doesn't mean there's a problem with the hammer, it means there's a problem with the operator. If you use the tool in a way it's not intended to be used, then don't be surprised when it does a shitty job.
I had to use Clearcase as my source control system for one company I worked for. The idea was you set up a view spec (a bit like a branch), mapped a drive letter to it and you never had to pull again because it would always reflect that branch. Your local changes went over the top and when it was time to commit you could merge up and commit. In practice what it meant was the source code was constantly changing under your feet, and binaries were constantly stale or in a mystery state because you didn't know what they were compiled against. And because this was IBM software it was unusably slow across WANs, memory hungry and enjoyed triggering random blue screens.
While a vfs sounds like a great idea, I think in theory it's only of use for very, very large repos. Even then I wonder if the exact same issues that made Clearcase suck would make it suck even with Git.
To be fair to IBM, ClearCase had this behavior before the three mergers that made it part of IBM. (Pure + Atria -> PureAtria, PureAtria + Rational -> Rational, IBM + Rational -> IBM)
I actually liked the concept of "wink-in" where derived objects that came from the same source objects and build environment could just be pulled from someone else's build instead of rebuilt. But the system as a whole required a zippy network.
I don't hold out hope that a vfs on top of another scm solution would be even as fast as ClearCase, and certainly not faster.
The fact you needed a release team and release engineers to manage a clear case implementation is why its considered one of the worst systems out there, remembered with hatred by almost everyone who used it. A version control system should be easily set up by one admin in an hour or two, and then usable without reams of documentation by any of the engineers. ClearCase failed that.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Wait a second.
MS just invented an efficient way to checkout the Linux kernel on windows, so you can get the kernel sources, compile it, and then run Linux and ditch Windows ?
That's great !!
aaaaaaa
You must have never used their enterprise Dynamics CRM and Dynamics NAV software.
If you can get it to run at all, half the shit is broken. Hell, the 2013 edition of CRM actually told you NOT to install the newest version of IE because it was "unsupported at this time." Yeah. IE (11?) didn't support CRM. Now I've got to explain to my clients why Windows Update completely broke their brand new system they paid thousands of dollars for.
Another great "feature" of CRM 2013 was a completely broken IMPORT system. So if you're trying to import anything other than mind-numbingly simple data like "addresses." You have to add stuff with timestamps, dates, and so on. You surely don't want ALL USER MESSAGES to lose their order and timestamps, right? TOO BAD. Even though CRM supports setting the timestamp, for certain record types the importer is completely broken and they never cared to fix it. So the "simple" solution? All you have to do is create a C# plugin, based on non-compiling code from an obscure blog. Oh wait, you can't just write a C# plugin. You have to use their HUGE SDK, their tools to "attach" the plugin to CRM and even that requires hours of reading manuals to figure out the right triggers. And if something goes wrong? ENJOY ZERO USEFUL ERROR MESSAGES. And yes, I turned on tracing (Which requires CHANGING THE REGISTRY in various places.) and debug mode.
Or how about SQL 2014/2015, which STILL doesn't properly support DPI scaling. The hallmark of Windows 10, and if you use a high resolution with a small laptop screen, random dialog boxes will not only be shrunk and force you to squint to read them... no... that'd be too easy. Some of them are so broken that you can't physically view all of the contents of the dialog AND YOU CAN'T SCROLL TO SEE IT. The dialog dimensions are shrunk and the data is to the right of a window you can't resize!
THANKS MICROSOFT. I love fixing your shit at my job while having to explain to clients that Microsoft's "It Just Works (TM) if you stay within the MS ecosystem!" is all a bunch of bullshit and the "It works" trademark is actually paved with the blood of IT workers.
Microsoft could make great products. Too bad they never bother to finish any of them.
That's really bad naming practice.
It's consistent naming for that project. ... Windows.
Any kernel configuration for netfilter with match support gets lower case names, and with target support it gets upper case names. In some cases there is support for both.
And the only real problem with this is
It may be consistent, but it is terrible.
Better would be:
xt_match_hl.c
xt_target_HL.c
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.