The sooner they admit TFS is dead and commit 100% to git the better.

In fact, I think everyone should use git :)

I think you mean Visual Source Safe ;)

1st party == 3rd party

This was actually the first thing that I actually noticed about Visual Studio Team Services, when I first looked at integrating my search and code analytics engine with VSTS. It was quite apparent that they wanted to make 3rd party developers, first class citizens.

Anybody who has ever worked in Enterprise, knows feature requirements are heavily driven by politics. And if you can't support the weirdest edge cases, resistance for adoption can become insurmountable. Having looked at VSTS, you could easily tell they wanted to reduce as much push back as possible.

Good story. It'd be interesting to see a portable version (which I guess would have to either run on Mono or be rewritten in something else); or maybe Google will release some of theirs. I'm impressed that Microsoft had the courage to scale mostly-vanilla git instead of hacking Mercurial.

these articles are less genuine and interesting because it is the same person with the same theme https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=dstaheli

Great to see MS working on this, and also posting the code!

"As a side effect, this approach also has some very nice characteristics for large binary files. It doesn’t extend Git with a new mechanism like LFS does, no turds, etc. It allows you to treat large binary files like any other file but it only downloads the blobs you actually ever touch."

It seems every day I see another attempt to scale Git to support storage of large files. IMHO lack of large file support is the Achilles Heel of git. So far I am somewhat happy with Git LFS despite some pretty serious limitations - mainly the damage a user who doesn't have Git LFS installed can inflict when they push a binary file to a repo.

I'm curious what other folks on HN use to store large files in Git without allowing duplication?

I yet have to run into a issue where i even want a large file in git.

The common case that I see are binaries that are being versioned through the VCS. Large binaries, be they libraries or the application, are stored in the VCS and it is used as the source of truth from that point on.

Git explicitly called this out as a bad practice. Other vendors, like Perforce, never really did an amazing job with it, but it worked and on top of that, created more reliance on the vendor's system. Now that most people see the shear productivity gains of Git over centralized VCS systems, everyone wants to move, but that comes with a catch. Many of these companies have large workflows built around the way that their old VCS works, and even have compliance rules that have that methodology written into things like their SOX compliance regulations.

It's this set of people, that generally have this issue. For everyone else, using just boring old disks is fine for packages and built product as that can be recreated from the SCM. Now, with LFS in Git, you can maintain the same workflow as you had in your old VCS, without changing the entire structure of the organization to work with it.