Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Have you actually used P4 in anger?

Having to add P4 support to any script, sucks. Having to do a network operation when touching files, sucks. Many many many apps have no idea what p4 is and will never get p4 support.

Git gets out of the way.



> Have you actually used P4 in anger?

Yes. I use it every day. I've ran P4 servers that serve hundreds of GBs per day globally with both commit edges and regular proxies. I've written batch scripts, bash scripts, and tooling in python, go and C# around it.

> Having to add P4 support to any script, sucks.

I disagree. It's no worse than adding git support to something. p4 zTag isn't the most elegant thing, but it works.

> Having to do a network operation when touching files, sucks.

Does it? Is it any worse than having to keep the entire history of every file locally on your machine, including any "large files?" And git-lfs as a solution to that means you're now coupled to wherever those files are stored. Making large submits to P4 isn't the nicest experience, but it sure beats paying that price every time you clone a repo IMO.

> Many many many apps have no idea what p4 is and will never get p4 support

In the same way that many people in this thread are blaming a git gui for a problem, "that's not P4's fault". I do agree it's shit though.

> Git gets out of the way.

Until it doesn't.


The point is you don't need to add git support.

Yes, network traffic does suck more than spending extra disk space, especially when you need multiple workspace because P4 sucks at switching anyway.

I don't understand what you mean about cloning. If you set up LFS properly it's not much worse than a fresh P4 pull.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: