> Git’s content-addressed revision graph is excellent, but it treats binary files as second-class citizens—large files require bolted-on LFS rather than first-class chunked storage, sparse checkouts have sharp edges in offline use, and there is no native multi-tenant isolation.

I'm trying to figure out what Lore can accomplish that git+LFS can't. I've read about big binaries chunking, native interface and permission, is there anything else? Weren't those problems already solvable in the git+LFS ecosystem?

▲

zipy124 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you've used git+LFS for any extended period of times, you'd know how often it breaks, especially when used with forges like GitHub. Both GitHub and Git treat LFS as an after-thought and second class citizen.

	▲	Lucasoato 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Can you tell me where did it break? Or what feature you wished it had? I’m just curious, still trying to form an opinion on this.

▲

frollogaston 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The fact that it's even referred to as git+LFS instead of just git... If I needed to work with large files frequently, I wouldn't want such a basic feature bolted on. Not a criticism of git, just can see why Epic doesn't use git.

▲

bob1029 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've used git+LFS for unity projects without much issue. If I was working with more than 2 people, I would definitely reach for something centralized.