HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
gritzko
beagle
JavaScript2024–2026
gritzko / beagle

beagle

Beagle - git-compatible revision control for modern workflows 🐕

8Distinct people
43Mentions
2Explicit recommenders
250GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Beagle - git-compatible revision control for modern workflows 🐕

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

I am a big fan of Ragel[1]. That is a high performance parser generator. In fact, it can generate different types of parsers, very powerful. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of…

gritzko used a recommendation phrase. 3 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 4:00:59 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month43 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2024-09-03 05:07:26 UTC to 2026-07-22 21:54:42 UTC.

02468102024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsSep 20242024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 2 submissions, 2 comments2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsAug 20252025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 3 submissions, 7 comments2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 9 mentions; 0 submissions, 9 comments2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 commentsJul 2026

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Sep 20242024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Oct 20242024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC422
Nov 20242024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC312
Dec 20242024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
Jan 20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Feb 20252025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20252025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20252025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20252025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20252025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Jul 20252025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC211
Aug 20252025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20252025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20252025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC211
Nov 20252025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20252025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20262026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Feb 20262026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20262026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC1037
Apr 20262026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20262026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC909
Jun 20262026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 20262026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC303

What Hacker News says

1 sources
Nice experiment, but a bit expensive. I work on Beagle, a git-compatible SCM [1]. I use ABC, Abstractionless C [2] dialect with slices, optional range checking, etc. So far, memory safety was the least of my concerns, frankly. Most of the thorny issues would be equally thorny in Rust (e.g. right now: reflog zeroed when VM ran out of disk space; must be some state machine issue or an OS level glitch). Also, forking off a C process (no runtime) is cheap enough that you actually want to do that more. But, those are all technicalities. The key issue I see with the approach: the data structures and algos of git have been fanatically fine tuned for that particular application with those particular usage patterns. By very sophisticated low-level C programmers. So, quite likely, any other app/lib working with that store will always be a suboptima
Read the rest
l fit. I would recommend read-only access only, esp for LLM code. Meanwhile, git's underlying data model (blobs/trees/commits) is very simple and very much internet-standard level. Decoupling at that interface is so much easier with so much less issues looming. May look differently from your vantage point though. [1]: https://github.com/gritzko/beagle [2]: https://replicated.wiki/blog/abc
In Grit: Rewriting Git in Rust with agents

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.