oneofthose

> AMD’s software experience is riddled with bugs [...] AMD’s weaker-than-expected software Quality Assurance (QA) culture and its challenging out of the box experience.

This has anecdotally been true since forever. Back in the day, OpenCL implementations were passing conformance test but performance was poor. They could not turn hardware capabilities into performance for compute users. Drivers were buggy. Documentation was poor compared to NVidia's docs and forum. Offerings were inconsistent (look up Sycl from Codeplay) and ownership of what it is like to develop for AMD was unclear. The notion that it might not have improved or is only now improving is puzzling. It can't be for the lack of recognizing the problem. Intuitively it does not seem so difficult. I'm curious what the reasons are.

I think fossil is not exactly post-git but runs in parallel with git. But definitely a good fit for small teams. For true post-git if you feel adventurous I would try jj or pijul.

That is indeed somewhat ironic. It does not seem particularly active, with the last and the last release more than 1 year ago.

Is there a design doc one could study? At a high level I understand how the fact that patches are commutative is elegant, but it seems to me there are performance impacts when, to get to a repository state, we have to apply many patches. Would love to read how pijul thinks about that.

Thanks for sharing - that is too bad. Is there nothing in the way-back machine? Or maybe somebody has a local copy?