In Pijul, conflicts are not modelled as a "failure to merge", but rather as the standard case. Specifically, conflicts happen between two changes, and are solved by one change. The resolution change solves the conflict between the same two changes, no matter if other changes have been made concurrently. Once solved, conflicts never come back. - from https://pijul.org/. - Source: Hacker News / about 1 month ago
Do not try and bend the spoon, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon. Then you will see it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself -- what Pijul users say when they overhear git users arguing with each other about monorepos. https://pijul.org/. - Source: Hacker News / about 1 month ago
I believe that handling merges like this correctly was a motive for designing pijul: https://pijul.org See the item on the splash page about 'merge correctness'. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the post detailing the behavior with a bit of searching. - Source: Hacker News / 2 months ago
Darcs [0] patch theory was a predecessor to OTs/CRDTs (and a predecessor to git as well; in some ways it is the "smart" to which git was named "dumb"). When it works and performs well it is still sometimes version control magic. Pijul [1] is an interesting experiment to watch, trying to keep the patch theory flag flying and also trying to bring in updates from OTs and CRDTs as it can. [0] https://darcs.net [1]... - Source: Hacker News / 2 months ago
IMHO the only really interesting alternative to Git currently is Pijul (https://pijul.org) as it is not a more-or-less Git clone but a different approach to the problem itself. Pijul allows for very interesting development and ci/cd workflows. - Source: Hacker News / 2 months ago
??? Might be https://pijul.org/ with its commutative awesomeness. - Source: Hacker News / 2 months ago
Solved is a strong word. For most people, especially with git-forges geing so popular, yes. But if you are doing binaries, because you are an artist/do 3d modeling, you probably sill use svn. And I am still checking in on https://pijul.org/ from time to time. - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago
Not only merge conflicts I find that this causes trouble if you need to manage multiple branches. Generally you see patterns like 1. Create patch 2. Merge to main branch 3. Backport a cherry pick. But there is no machine-readable metadata that the commit is the same in both cases. In simple cases you can work around this by basing the patch off of the merge base but if there are conflicts that doesn't work well.... - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago
I'm not super into the theory, so I can't explain it very well, but it looks promising. [0] https://pijul.org/. - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago
Perforce. As for DVCS, the best one I've used is Darcs: https://darcs.net/ There are some sticky wickets (specifically, exponential-time conflict resolution) that hindered its adoption. Thankfully, there's Pijul, which is like Darcs but a) solves that problem; and b) is written in Rust! The perfect DVCS, probably! https://pijul.org/. - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago
I hope one day Pijul[1] will become more common, as the more advanced alternative to git. [1] https://pijul.org/. - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago
Https://pijul.org/ commutative as it's based on "theory of patches" not diffs. - Source: Hacker News / 5 months ago
Latest contender is https://pijul.org/ , which claims easier conflict resolution, ability to work with part of repository and handling of binary files, but so far completely misses social aspect. - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago
Related DVCS: https://pijul.org/ I need to try it out at $WORK since constant rebasing on a busy repo with a hundred or so committers is not fun. - Source: Hacker News / 8 months ago
I found Pijul https://pijul.org/ described in this talk to be very interesting. It was discussed on HN before. - Source: Hacker News / 8 months ago
Some people think it's also a sign that the devs are overusing merge and underusing rebase, but IMHO the fact that there's a difference between those two operations is a design flaw in git (pijul has a sounder design but is missing a few features). Source: 12 months ago
This is why there is a hope to build a new VCS that isn't that state-dependent and based on isolated patches - Pijul[1]. [1] https://pijul.org. - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago
It might be there already for distributed version control systems. https://pijul.org/ I always wondered if git would have been as popular if it wouldn't have come from Linus. - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago
There is also https://nest.pijul.com/pijul/thrussh which is used by and developed for https://pijul.org/, but I am not not sure how feature complete it is. Source: about 1 year ago
> I've been learning Pijul these days. I looked this up and Pijul is a "distributed version control system" being written in Rust: https://pijul.org/. - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago
Presentation description: > "Ten years ago, only Linux kernel committers and other early adopters used Git. Almost everyone else used Subversion. Ten years later, Git is the most popular product. Which makes me wonder: what will we use another ten years from now? And what features would YOU want from your version control software in 2032? No history rewrites? Faster? No merge conflicts ever?" An (incomplete)... - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago
Do you know an article comparing Pijul to other products?
Suggest a link to a post with product alternatives.
This is an informative page about Pijul. You can review and discuss the product here. The primary details have not been verified within the last quarter, and they might be outdated. If you think we are missing something, please use the means on this page to comment or suggest changes. All reviews and comments are highly encouranged and appreciated as they help everyone in the community to make an informed choice. Please always be kind and objective when evaluating a product and sharing your opinion.