The recent introduction of Evo, a new version control system promising to simplify code management, has sparked significant discussion among developers who question whether its workspace-based approach truly addresses real-world development challenges.
Workspace Model Faces Practical Concerns
While Evo promotes a streamlined workspace per feature workflow as an alternative to Git's branching system, experienced developers are raising concerns about its practicality. The proposed linear workflow, where developers create a workspace for each feature, complete the work, and merge it, appears to oversimplify the complex nature of software development. Many developers point out that real-world development rarely follows such a straightforward path, with work often involving multiple interconnected changes and parallel development streams.
I'm skeptical of anything that assumes a single branch/workspace per feature. My career never has worked that way. I'm always juggling a series of changes that will be reviewed and merged in close succession but separately.
Community Concerns:
- Linear workflow limitations
- Command clarity and documentation
- Complex merge scenario handling
- Feature isolation vs. parallel development
- Real-world workflow compatibility
Historical Context and Technical Challenges
The discussion has brought up interesting parallels to previous version control systems, particularly Darcs, which took a patch-management approach rather than focusing on revision history. The community debate highlights a fundamental tension in version control system design: whether to prioritize managing patches (features) or revisions. This discussion reveals that both approaches have their merits and limitations, with some developers noting that the ideal solution might need to incorporate both paradigms effectively.
Technical Documentation and Clarity Concerns
Developers have also raised issues about the clarity of Evo's commands and documentation. The command evo workspace merge has been criticized for its ambiguity compared to more straightforward Git commands like push. This highlights a broader concern about whether simplifying version control necessarily leads to better usability, especially when the underlying concepts remain complex.
Key Features of Evo:
- Workspace-based development model
- Built-in large file support
- Structural merging for JSON and YAML files
- Offline-first architecture
- Ed25519-based commit signing
- HTTP/2 client-server communication
Enterprise Features Under Scrutiny
While Evo boasts built-in large file support and structural merges for configuration files, the community is requesting more detailed information about how these features actually work in practice. Particularly, developers are interested in seeing demonstrations of how the system handles multiple feature merges with conflicts, and how it manages different types of files, from text-based code to large media assets.
The skepticism from the development community suggests that while there's genuine interest in improving version control tools, any new solution needs to thoroughly address the complex realities of modern software development rather than just simplifying the interface.
Reference: Evo: The Evolution of Version Control