Lies I was told about collab editing, Part 1: Algorithms for offline editing

Re:Lies I was told about collab editing, Part 1: Algorithms ... by SkiFire13 on Sunday December 08, 2024 @02:17PM (#42359551)

> Ideally, I want to be able to replace git with something that is built on CRDTs. When branches have no conflicts, CRDTs already work fine - since you merge, run tests, and push when you’re happy.

How is this different than git's automatic merging? Or another compatible algorithm

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lies I was told about collab editing, Part 1: Algorithms ... by josephg on Sunday December 08, 2024 @04:38PM (#42360777)

In the happy case? Its no different. But in the case where two offline edits happen at the same location, Git's merging knows to flag the conflict for human review. Thats the part that needs to be fixed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lies I was told about collab editing, Part 1: Algorithms ... by SkiFire13 on Monday December 09, 2024 @05:08PM (#42371087)

It's not clear to me what you want to replace from git then, it seems to me that you rather want to take concepts from git.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lies I was told about collab editing, Part 1: Algorithms ... by josephg on Monday December 09, 2024 @10:01PM (#42373285)

I want a tool with the best parts of both git and a crdt:

- From CRDTs I want support for realtime collaborative editing. This could even include non-code content (like databases). And some developer tools could use the stream of code changes to implement hot-module reloading and live typechecking.

- From git I want .. well, everything git does. Branches. Pull requests. Conflict detection when branches merge. Issue tracking. (This isn't part of git, but it would be easy to add using json-like CRDTs!)

We can do almost all of that today. The one part that's seriously missing is merge conflicts.

[ Parent | on HN ]