Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I think this article conflates GitHub and Git a few times, though the author definitely knows better.
For better or for worse, I don't think Git is going anywhere. A lot of the recent developments in source control amount to providing a better user experience for git repos.
We might well see companies move away from GitHub as source of truth in favor of alternate forges with better SLAs or self-hosting, but dethroning git itself at this point feels very unlikely.
That being said, Git has two big weaknesses: non-text files and handling massive repositories. This is why you see continued use of centralized version control systems (e.g. Perforce, ClearCase) at organizations that need these things. Git LFS tries to address large non-text files, but in my experience teams tend to prefer VCS systems that handle this natively.
At a few big tech companies that decided to use huge monorepos 20 years ago, they've since hand-rolled custom non-git version control systems tailored to their unique scale. These systems usually work by combining a centralized version control server (similar to SVN or Perforce) with a virtual file system that selectively populates code paths based on the current checkout.
But the vast majority of orgs don't need massive monorepos or large amounts of non-text files checked into their repo.
by snovymgodym - > If only 2 years ago somebody said GitHub would be no longer relevant soon, nobody would believe them. GitHub was the undisputed leader in repository hosting [..]
> GitHub has done too many great things over the years, so I hope it remains, but there is obviously an earthquake going on.
Is the 'earthquake' referring to the frequent outages over the last couple of years, and if so are those outages because Microsoft can't keep up with the demand?
It's closer to 'too relevant' than it is to 'no longer relevant'.
by mrkeen - People complained about having to use ClearCase back then, it wasn't just the price that was wrong with it.by rjsw
- Love the enthusiasm but I don't buy the two macro tailwinds he's counting on: ever larger monorepos & more centralisation.
What you version together you build and release together, and there are architectural tensions pushing that size down. E.g. dependency indirection and change frequency. Mileage will surely vary by domain, but the idea that the "future is monorepo because agents" doesn't track with me.
The centralisation aspect has less to do with connectedness and more with topology, I'd say. Here, the agentic ways might actually push towards more hierarchical and distributed topologies than the centralised hub-and-spoke.
by vlfig - What second coming? If I had the option I would still be using either Mercurial or SVN.
In fact, the way I use Git is hardly any different, I have no interest in getting a black belt in git magic.
by pjmlp - It sounds like the author went through a lot of pain to avoid using git+lfs or perforce.
I use git+lfs for unity projects and it works out great. If I had a real studio I'd buy some perforce seats.
Reinventing the wheel like this is quite exhausting. There are options that are proven to work. AI authorship does not fundamentally violate the idea of some thing owning a specific commit. We don't need new schemas in our source control system. "Provenance" is a bullshit word used to make the AI sound like it's some kind of oracular source with superhuman capabilities.
by bob1029 - Dreaming of "virtual filesystems everywhere". Hmm, sorta sounds like Plan 9.
Great to have an inside view of wrangling technologies for these behemoth data sets.
by bolangi - 2/3 down the article I gave up. What are you trying to tell me? What is this revolution about? How are agent things fundamentally different and how are they being solved? What is this "second coming"?
Also, why "second"? Was git the first? But then what about all the other things before it? CVS was huge before, for better or worse.
by teiferer