←back to thread

Dolt is Git for data

(www.dolthub.com)
358 points timsehn | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
peteforde ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
Jestar342 ◴[] No.22736421{4}[source]
AFAIK (from the rumour mill and not from any kind of reliable source) the `git branch` command was only added as a cargocult from all the SVN users flocking to git and asking "So how do I branch?!". Previous to this, everything was tags and checkouts.

Again, no verifiable source, just water cooler talk with other devs.

replies(1): >>22737250 #
1. tosser678 ◴[] No.22737250{5}[source]
from the first kernel merge (link found in wikipedia)

https://marc.info/?l=git&m=111377572329534

I don't know about 'git branch', but it looks like 'git merge' wasn't a thing

edit: from searching a bit, it appears that it had branches on June of the launch year, dunno if it had those on release.

replies(1): >>22738581 #
2. enigmo ◴[] No.22738581[source]
The git log is also handy.

first "merge": https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/commit/?id=33deb6...

first "tag": https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/commit/?id=bf0c6e...

first "branch": https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/commit/?id=74b242...

first Linus "branch" commit: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/commit/?id=e69a19...