> Aren’t git commits stored as patches?

No, they aren't, git commits are stored as snapshots. Each git commit has one tree, which is a snapshot of the state after the commit; zero or more parent commits; a pair of authors with corresponding timestamps; a commit message; and nothing more. Any patch you see in git is an illusion, made by comparing the commit's tree with the parent commit's tree.

Thank you. Sheesh I feel like I should have known this about git. That would make diffing very far apart changes super fast.

So what's the advantage to explicit storage in patches over snapshots? Are diffs between snapshots not able to capture the same information that explicit patches have?

The trouble with patches is that you can't get engineers to reliably declare whenever they copy or move code and where it came from. This is part of why svn merging was such a trainwreck, undeclared copies and moves (which look like delete+insert) almost always conflicted.

I'm one of the authors. Our goal is to make something much much easier to use than Git, and we're already succeeding in doing that.

The math can be completely ignored by the user, it is just a way to guarantee that the tool will always match the basic intuition of version control. For instance:

- "Associativity" is a concept of algebra, but when applied to version control, it just means the following: let's Alice makes a commit A, and Bob makes two commits B and C. If Alice pulls B, and then pulls C, associativity means that she'll get the same as pulling B and C together. Pijul is associative, but Git is not!

- "Commutativity" is also a concept of algebra, but in practice in version control, it means that you don't have to think about feature branches. In Pijul, two patches that you could produce on different branches are "independent" anyway. Applying them in any order will always yield the same result, so you can push any of them, no matter the order in which you made them. This property means that "rebasing" becomes much simpler: it's just the action of applying and unapplying patches. Also, cherry-picking becomes the default, you don't even have to think about it.

- "Inverses": in Pijul, all patches have inverses. Sure, it sounds like `git revert`, except that `git revert` can sometimes screw things up very badly (if you `git revert` a merge commit, for instance).

Also, in Pijul, conflicts are the normal state, so you don't need anything like `git rerere`, and two users with the same patches (even in different orders) will always see the same conflicts. If you have a patch solving a conflict between two other patches, then the conflict is solved forever, and doesn't "come back".

As a conclusion, I'd say Git might be too technical for a normal programmer (which is why we have giant threads like this one on HN), but Pijul is the exact opposite.

It is as powerful as Git, but beginner-friendly, infinitely faster to learn, and more flexible. Since there can be no "bad merge", you don't have to think about your version control system anymore, and can focus on your work.

That said, there are still a few problems:

- it's not yet as efficient as Git for storage, but we're working on it. We just released the first full implementation a few weeks ago.

- it will never be as good as Git for detecting file moves, because Git is happy with a soup of blobs, whereas Pijul needs more structure (but OTOH that extra structure makes Pijul much better at "blame").

Thanks for the reply and explanation. You’re convincing me to at least try it.

I want to understand first-hand by using Pijul what you mean by not needing rerere and having no such thing as a bad merge. Do you mean it’s not possible to make merge mistakes, or just that the default choices made by the version control system are never wrong? The only times I’ve ever needed rerere are when I made mistakes rebasing or resolving merge conflict, and I had to roll back and do a bunch of them again. In that case, I chose to manually undo my merge, so rerere is just saving time from having to repeat all of my decisions when only a few were wrong.

I like the idea of Pijul being better at blame. Of course the main thing that needs to happen is tooling. Git’s blame has been fine but the UI for it stinks. This is maybe the feature I miss from Perforce the most; the blame UI in P4V is superlative compared to git.

It's indeed not possible to make merge mistakes in Pijul, in the sense that the order between lines is always preserved: if line A comes before B in one repository, A will be before B in all repositories that have these two lines.

Moreover, merge is associative, which is the intuitive idea of a "good merge", in the sense that merging your patches one by one is the same as merging them all at once (this is false in Git).

In Pijul you can't "make mistakes rebasing". A repository is a set of patches (set as in maths), you can add patches or remove patches from the set, and that's about it. Two repositories with the same set of patches (possibly applied in different orders) are totally equivalent (in particular they have the same file contents).

So, rebasing in this case would be just the operation of adding some patches and removing others, and hence you can't make mistakes doing that, because there is no manual merge operation needed (of course you still need to solve your conflicts).

> The FAQ even says, “Pijul is trivial for whoever knows category theory.” Is that question really asked frequently? Words like that might convince me to never try it. ;)

There have been a few blog posts after we first announced it saying "Oh, it's just category theory, so I could rediscover it independently in Haskell in just a few hours".

"Trivial for whoever knows category theory" is about as serious as "a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?"