402 karma · joined November 5, 2015
I feel like the article is a bit light on the design of the WAL and maintenance operations, but maybe it's me.
Anyway, I'd love to have a friendly chat with the author.
I don't really like git that much, but it works pretty well most of the time.
While I would love to test this tool, this is not something I would run on any machine :/
And no, I don't bother with crap that needs a kernel level anti-cheat. Simply not for me.
Some critique is definitely valid, but some of it just sounds like they didn't take the time to grasp the language. It's trade offs all the way. For example there is a lot I like about Rust, but still no my favorite language.
I think all of those are using git and many Gerrit as well.
As if the compression rate increase at medium levels were so significant over bzip2 or grip.
Plenty of good choices.
I really wish git wasn't using them.
To me it doesn't matter if code comes in through a vendor, a dependency or is written in house.
It's all well within the responsibility of the organization owning and deploying the artifacts.
But then many packages are so trivial that they shouldn't even require a license.
Same goes for abandoned projects.
Maintainers are free to do whatever they want, even if it doesn't make any sense at all.