The AI instructions in the `specs.md` file gave me a couple clues, e.g. `at` is the directory where the worktree should be created.
And it's clearly using btrfs subvolumes for managing a collection of related Git working trees; there's a concept of "parent" and "child" worktrees.
I don't yet understand why it's better than worktrees, other than being theoretically instant to create new ones (which could, I suppose, be a noticeable speedup if your repo is very very large).
But yeah, some more hand-written instructions in the README would definitely be helpful. I'd be particularly interested to learn whether some of the common "gotchas" one can run into with worktrees are solved by Rift or not. (E.g., I've never needed to move my "root" git repo, but apparently that causes problems because the worktrees then can't find the root repo; does Rift deal with that situation correctly?)
Currently it just sounds like an alternative to work trees, but with no explanation on how it’s better. Seems early stages, use of btrfs is cool, but unsure why I’d use this right now
Is it just an experimental tool by opencode team? If there is some article about this tool, I would love to read it. It’s not clear to me why I should use this instead of git worktree.
If that achieves quick COW copies of whole repo and works on Mac OS that's the solution I've been looking for last few weeks. Internets and Claude were insisting that such copies are possible only on Linux via OverlayFS. Seamless switching between unrelated features in the same repo – here I come!
With btrfs, you can freely create subvolumes and snapshots anywhere (including nested inside of each other), you can have thousands of them without any noticeable performance impact, and you can easily convert a snapshot to a writable subvolume. I don't have much experience with ZFS, but from reading another post [0], my impression is that this isn't really doable with ZFS. And based off of rift's Readme, I think that these features are required for it to work. But I'm not an expert, so I may be mistaken about something here.
That reflinks the files, which should get you the space savings, but I'm pretty sure that that still has to recursively copy every file in the directory, which can be fairly slow if you have tens of thousands of files, whereas btrfs snapshots can reflink the directory itself, so it should be faster.
Buy yeah, this should be equivalent in most cases, since I can't imagine that many Git repos have enough files for the difference to be noticeable.
Brought to you by the infamous author of yet another llm harness - will exfiltrate all your data, then feign ignorance:
https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/10416
Readme seems generated then minimized to the extreme, to a point where I cannot follow it anymore.
> The JavaScript init function initializes exactly `at`; Git-root selection and `--here` are CLI behavior.
What does this mean? Maybe I'm missing something
Also some of the stuff in this README seems like it should be in comments above/in their respected code blocks.
It also did not tell me why rift is a better alternative. Because it's fast? git worktrees are also fast.
The AI instructions in the `specs.md` file gave me a couple clues, e.g. `at` is the directory where the worktree should be created.
And it's clearly using btrfs subvolumes for managing a collection of related Git working trees; there's a concept of "parent" and "child" worktrees.
I don't yet understand why it's better than worktrees, other than being theoretically instant to create new ones (which could, I suppose, be a noticeable speedup if your repo is very very large).
But yeah, some more hand-written instructions in the README would definitely be helpful. I'd be particularly interested to learn whether some of the common "gotchas" one can run into with worktrees are solved by Rift or not. (E.g., I've never needed to move my "root" git repo, but apparently that causes problems because the worktrees then can't find the root repo; does Rift deal with that situation correctly?)
Currently it just sounds like an alternative to work trees, but with no explanation on how it’s better. Seems early stages, use of btrfs is cool, but unsure why I’d use this right now
Is it just an experimental tool by opencode team? If there is some article about this tool, I would love to read it. It’s not clear to me why I should use this instead of git worktree.
I find it hard to understand what it is about. Better in what way?
If that achieves quick COW copies of whole repo and works on Mac OS that's the solution I've been looking for last few weeks. Internets and Claude were insisting that such copies are possible only on Linux via OverlayFS. Seamless switching between unrelated features in the same repo – here I come!
No. XFS too - `cp --reflink=auto`. or LVM / ZFS snapshots if you will
Does it work well when we have gitsubmodules?
I had some issues regarding that.
Neat! Would a similar approach work with ZFS instead of btrfs?
With btrfs, you can freely create subvolumes and snapshots anywhere (including nested inside of each other), you can have thousands of them without any noticeable performance impact, and you can easily convert a snapshot to a writable subvolume. I don't have much experience with ZFS, but from reading another post [0], my impression is that this isn't really doable with ZFS. And based off of rift's Readme, I think that these features are required for it to work. But I'm not an expert, so I may be mistaken about something here.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45077119
How about cp --reflink? Supported by btrfs, bcachefs and zfs. It's quite not as fast as subvolumes in btrfs, but it should be plenty fast.
This should actually be a feature for git itself, if it's not already.
That reflinks the files, which should get you the space savings, but I'm pretty sure that that still has to recursively copy every file in the directory, which can be fairly slow if you have tens of thousands of files, whereas btrfs snapshots can reflink the directory itself, so it should be faster.
Buy yeah, this should be equivalent in most cases, since I can't imagine that many Git repos have enough files for the difference to be noticeable.
I don't have a reflink-able filesystem in this host, but I just tested that
took 2.6 seconds for 273000 files, so I think it's highly manageable. Reflinking might be a bit slower than hardlinking, though.Also you can create and destroy (assuming the 'user_subvol_rm_allowed' mount option) BTRFS subvolumes without being root.
Will this replace /warp in Opencode? Seeing as it's made by the same team