> Why not Git/Git-LFS, libgit2, or SVN?
> Disadvantages:
> (Without Git-LFS): Heavy cost with zipping, packing, and delta-compression for larger files
Given the caveat (without Git-LFS) it seems odd to include this in the list
> If not properly tracked, binaries become accidentally part of "base" history
That's a big "if", and not an inherent problem. This could easily be resolved by any good design-focused UI (e.g. SnowTrack), so this seems a poor argument against using Git as a backend.
> Removing older commits is cumbersome due to Gits commit hashing integrity
This (like the first bullet point) does not apply to Git-LFS.
> Complicated rewriting history procedure
What?
> Issues with binaries >4GB on Windows
A known bug in Git-LFS that they're working to fix. There are workarounds provided in the linked tickets (that could be leveraged by a UI / abstraction layer like SnowTrack).
This is the first item in the bullet list that is a real disadvantage of Git LFS, but the workaround for it seems much less effort than developing a new VCS backend from scratch.
> Slow in binary modification detection
I'm not sure if this applies to Git or Git LFS; there's little detail provided. But if it's significant, this is probably the only really compelling disadvantage listed.
> Git uses a restrictive license
And finally we see the real reason for not using Git.
---
NOTE: I don't mean to make out that building an alternative VCS to Git is not worth pursuing. Nor that it needs any specific justification. Just that listing a justification that seems (to me) mostly disingenuous is worth pointing out.
The main requirement is performance (a missing point in your list). If Git would be a good candidate as a versioning system for DCC software packages, it would have been picked up by now, but it didn't happen, among others because of the reasons listed above. Git addresses a completely different target audience and lifecycle than SnowFS. The commit hash integrity is a problem in CG/VFX productions, so is the 4GB limitation, as well as the I/O performance for large binary files. The fact that these issues are still there are fully understandable, given the responsibility and dependencies of this project. That's why SnowFS tries to address the niche requirements with its light implementation.
In terms of the license, this is intentionally the weakest argument of all. It doesn't prevent anyone under the GPL to ship Git as an external program with a commercial software, same counts for libgit2 with its linking exception. So there is not even a real benefit here. But the chosen MIT license is an open invitation for everyone.
P.S. Certain features and technical solutions will be feature-proposed to libgit2
> The main requirement is performance (a missing point in your list)
The points I listed are not selected by me! I listed all the points in the project README verbatim. Other than the 2nd-to-last point (slow binary mod detect), performance wasn't otherwise listed in the README, so I don't know why you're calling me out for omitting it.
> If Git would be a good candidate as a versioning system for DCC software packages, it would have been picked up by now
You seem to be implying something else was picked up instead of Git? Other than SnowFS (which you say is in early alpha), what else has surpassed Git in this space? If nothing else has yet been picked up in place of Git, this argument isn't applicable.
> The commit hash integrity is a problem in CG/VFX productions, so is the 4GB limitation, as well as the I/O performance for large binary files
You seem to be again comparing SnowFS to Git-without-Git-LFS (other than the 4GB limitation which I already addressed in my comment). This is, as I said, disingenuous. Why keep making this selective comparison?
> P.S. Certain features and technical solutions will be feature-proposed to libgit2
That's cool, and I wish them the best of luck with developing these solutions. As I said, I've no issue with SnowFS; new approaches are always cool. I just think their listed justification is disingenuous; they'd be better of simply stating they want to develop something new and leave it at that.
Git annex lets you track references to binary files, only using git for storing references to file hashes.
And you can use custom back ends to efficiently store differential data.
For example, I have an annex repo that stores about 150G of text files, but it uses bup to compress it down to about 20G, while I can still have access to different versions via git.
I would also look at data science/ML as a potential use for the tool as there are real issues with using Git for training data.
Last point which is more of a tip: Show don’t tell. If you did some side by side workflow walkthroughs showing the difficulties with other tools it will make it easier for people to see that this problem is real (which it definitely is)
Honestly, I think the effort was better spent on an improved version of Git.
[0] https://dvc.org/
Yes, so if you want to make them use the same version control system (not a strange requirement, see Google monorepo), then the system should be all-encompassing, and not limited to one type of user.
And it may turn out that features meant for one type of user are also useful for other types of user. For example, programmers may need to store large image files as part of a deep-learning image classification system.
I'm usually not a fan of packing as many features as possible into a single tool, but in case of version control it makes sense. (A pluggable/modularized approach should of course be used if possible).
I'll throw in a shameless plug for my tool in this area, Dud[2]. Dud is to DVC what Flask is to Django.
Are the mentioned benchmarks published somewhere?
[1]: https://dvc.org [2]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud
[git add texture.psd: 20164ms] [snow add texture.psd: 4596ms] [git rm texture.psd: 575ms] [snow rm texture.psd: 111ms] [git checkout HEAD~1: 9739ms] [snow checkout HEAD~1: 1ms]
You might get slightly slower speeds on NTFS for 'add' and 'checkout' but still very performant
On the context of porting to C and C++, or make it execute faster, I can see two options with minor rewrites.
Use AssemblyScript and generate native code via WebAssembly AOT compilers.
Try to adapt TypeScript to C++ compiler from Microsoft's MakeCode project.
Implement your own C++ code generator.
It would be much easier than keep using multiple code bases in parallel, plus any memory corruption issues would be most likely bugs on the code generator.
[0] - Yes I know the source code is Typescript.
