Why you should know: There was a fair vote on the issue tracker, but Microsoft just ignored it and chose git lfs (GIT for Large File Systems) instead. Issue is still open though...

Context for the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What am I missing? This seems to be for VFS for git which as far as I can tell is different from git LFS.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 18 points 4 months ago

That's what this looks like to me as well. "Notice: With the release of VFS for Git 2.32, VFS for Git is in maintenance mode", so they actually renamed GVFS to VFS for Git (lol). Git LFS on the other hand has been public under this nae for over 9 years, the linked PR is just 7 years old, and I doubt MS would have this much influence over Git and the Software Freedom Conservancy.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 7 points 4 months ago

good thing git is independent from microsoft and they can do whatever the fuck they want once microsoft donates this code

[–] Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 months ago

"VFS for Git" doesn't even meet the first two of the three guidelines. And it's questionable how descriptive it is (I suppose Real Programmers™ would know what VFS are or why you'd want some, but I sure don't).

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

Is git LFS equivalent to git vfs?

[–] aivoton@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago

So you saw the vote for these three suggested names:

Projected Source Control for Git
VFS for Git
Sparse VFS for Git

And decided that Filey McFileface won?