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
What am I missing? This seems to be for VFS for git which as far as I can tell is different from git LFS.
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.
good thing git is independent from microsoft and they can do whatever the fuck they want once microsoft donates this code
“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).
Is git LFS equivalent to git vfs?
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?
