←back to thread

Dolt is Git for data

(www.dolthub.com)
358 points timsehn | 1 comments | 30 Mar 20 20:24 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
peteforde ◴[31 Mar 20 03:02 UTC] No.22734564[source]▶
Only 39 days since the last "GitHub for data" was announced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22375774

I'll say what I said in February: I started a company with the same premise 9 years ago, during the prime "big data" hype cycle. We burned through a lot of investor money only to realize that there was not a market opportunity to capture. That is, many people thought it was cool - we even did co-sponsored data contests with The Economist - but at the end of the day, we couldn't find anyone with an urgent problem that they were willing to pay to solve.

I wish these folks luck! Perhaps things have changed; we were part of a flock of 5 or 10 similar projects and I'm pretty sure the only one still around today is Kaggle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWMjQhhxhQ4

replies(15): >>22734677 #>>22734738 #>>22734742 #>>22734839 #>>22735019 #>>22735030 #>>22735213 #>>22735358 #>>22735661 #>>22736049 #>>22736513 #>>22736785 #>>22737514 #>>22737860 #>>22738642 #
philipov ◴[31 Mar 20 04:02 UTC] No.22734839[source]▶
Git succeeded because it was free, and then business models were able to be built up around the open-source ecosystem after a market evolved naturally. There is a need, but if you go into it trying to build a business from scratch, you're going to have a bad time.
replies(2): >>22735082 #>>22735219 #
TylerE ◴[31 Mar 20 05:12 UTC] No.22735082[source]▶
Git succeeded because of Linus.

Sure as hell wasn't because of the UX, else Mercurial would have won, or even DARCS.

99.99999% of projects are not the Linux kernel

replies(7): >>22735432 #>>22735442 #>>22735596 #>>22735880 #>>22736021 #>>22736399 #>>22737152 #
greggman3 ◴[31 Mar 20 06:54 UTC] No.22735442[source]▶
Mercurial would not have won. Mercurial has since added features, that are not the recommended workflow according to their docs, to have similar branching model to git but the default "as designed" workflow of hg is arguably inferior to git (yes, I know that word will get downvoted).

Without git, git's style of branching would likely never have been added to hg and even though it's been added now AFAICT hg people don't use it. No idea why. Git people get how much freedom git branches give them, freedom that other vcs, include hg don't/didn't.

replies(2): >>22735510 #>>22735515 #
koonsolo ◴[31 Mar 20 07:15 UTC] No.22735510[source]▶
Git branching is not intuitive, because they are not branches but pointers/labels. When you talk about the master branch, you actually talk about the master pointer.

The other VCSes have an intuitive concept of branches, because they are in fact branches.

I liked Mercurial more than Git, but when BitBucked dropped Mercurial I also switched to Git.

replies(4): >>22735889 #>>22735990 #>>22736020 #>>22736421 #
1. barrkel ◴[31 Mar 20 09:13 UTC] No.22735990{4}[source]▶
Git branches as labels into a DAG of edits maps exactly to what I think branches are. The difference between two branches is their respective edits from a common base. If you muck up a commit, you reset the pointer to the previous commit. If you muck that up, and accidentally reset too much, you can use your reflog to find out where you used to be on the DAG and reset the branch to that.

The transparency of the mechanism enables the user to be more powerful while knowing fewer concepts in total. The power of the system comes from the composition of simple parts.