See this is the kind of shit that bothers me with Git and we just sort of accept it, because it’s THE STANDARD. And then we crank attach these shitty LFS solutions on the side because it don’t really work.

Give me Perforce, please.

[–] MinFapper@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What was perforce's solution to this? If you delete a file in a new revision, it still kept the old data around, right? Otherwise there'd be no way to rollback.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes but Perforce is a (broadly) centralised system, so you don’t end up with the whole history on your local computer. Yes, that then has some challenges (local branches etc, which Perforce mitigates with Streams) and local development (which is mitigated in other ways).

For how most teams work, I’d choose Perforce any day. Git is specialised towards very large, often part time, hyper-distributed development (AKA Linux development), but the reality is that most teams do work with a main branch in a central location.

[–] suy@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

https://github.blog/2020-12-21-get-up-to-speed-with-partial-clone-and-shallow-clone/

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 7 months ago

Yes I’m aware, of course. But then you take on another set of trade-offs. It’s not like shallow cloning SOLVES your problem.