OUoutside1234·Dec 10, 2021
Are you looking for https://github.com/rust-crdt/rust-crdt and https://github.com/libp2p/rust-libp2p?
In Automerge: a new foundation for collaboration software [video]rust-crdt
rust-crdt
Rust2020–2021
rust-crdt / rust-crdt
rust-crdt
a collection of well-tested, serializable CRDTs for Rust
3Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
1.6KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
a collection of well-tested, serializable CRDTs for Rust
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 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 month3 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2020-07-11 19:45:01 UTC to 2021-12-10 15:38:38 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2020 | 2020-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Aug 2020 | 2020-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 2020-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2020 | 2020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Nov 2020 | 2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2020 | 2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2021 | 2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 2021 | 2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May 2021 | 2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 2021 | 2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2021 | 2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2021 | 2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2021 | 2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 2021 | 2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2021 | 2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
3 sourcesA family of CRDTs supporting both State and Op based replication in Rust
131 points · Open discussionThis was 100% the path I think I was traveling (Thank you for the link). I had a hard time grocking the complete specification from the paper, but the README of this repository that implements CRDTs in that frame was helpful [1].
The core part is separating the "merge" from the "resolve" state. Merging state can be done in a variety of ways, so in the default formulation there seems to be a focus on making the "merge" operation also "resolve" to only one value, when really there could be multiple formally valid merges that the client may desire (Which is part of the difficulty that the video notes as he proposes a variety of possible file system mutations for a set of two uncoordinated operations).
The cleanest clarification of my thought process is similar to the following:
Given the operation Merge(4, 2), I could propose that there ar
Read the rest
e two valid ways to perform this merge, addition and multiplication. This means the result would be either 6 or 8. The act of returning a single value (6 or 8) changes that proposal into a statement, though, which is the "resolve".
One subversion of this restriction is to return a set of all possible results for the operations we think are valid, so {6, 8}. At this point, the user can say (Either explicitly or implicitly) "I actually want 6" and we resolve it to the single value of {6}. There are also special cases like Merge(2, 2), where this whole situation is especially ergonomic because the merge operations are equivalent.
There are problems, of course, with this approach.
One issue is the need to categorize all possible operations the user may think are valid for Merge(4,2). If the user intended to do division, the result set proposed above will not include the state that they would expect. Still, this seems more general now, as we just need to gather the set of operations that the user may think are valid instead of assuming which one is valid. There's also a ranking problem that then exists at the UX level, as we need to find a way to cleanly propose this set of alternatives.
Another issue is, of course, exists if both users propose conflicting resolutions (Actor1 says "I want multiplication" and Actor2 says "I want addition"). This is the issue with decoupling the "merge" and "resolve" steps, as now we may cause a fork in the model which causes a fundamental divergence of the collaborator's data.
[1] https://github.com/rust-crdt/rust-crdt