5 ms·

The thing is Github’s core is git’s core plus extras, and thet core is fundamentally text wrangling. Youtube and Insta and Facebook and many other social media

The thing is Github’s core is git’s core plus extras, and thet core is fundamentally text wrangling. Youtube and Insta and Facebook and many other social media platforms handle very resource intensive media for billions of people plus bots. Increased influx from AI is not plausible when viewed from that lens.

edgyquant 1mo ago
It is though. Maybe you think they should be doing a better job but 12-24xing scale when you were already handling billions of commits is definitely understandable to me. It just does feel like they should have some way of ensuring customers, paying ones, don’t have to suffer so much.
- ajasmin 1mo ago
  Lots of paying customers also depend on the open source part of GitHub to run their business.
  - verve_rat 1mo ago
    That sounds like an opportunity for GitHub to clip the ticket for providing a way for those businesses to support those projects more directly.
- spockz 1mo ago
  Yes. It seems that at the very least repositories owned by paying customers should be processed on priority threads. And perhaps throttle commits/pushes to repos where there are a lot of pushes from the same person all the time. This can be effectively throttled at the push level.
  - user43928 1mo ago
    If I hadn't already switched to GitLab long ago, I'd certainly do so when my pushes to GitHub are throttled.
- Scubabear68 1mo ago
  First off, there aren’t that many developers in the world compared to consumers. Taking every developer in the world and multiplying by 12x-24x is not a-lot compared to many consumer oriented sites. Second, you can’t ignore the payloads, even an AI mostly text push is nothing compared to, say, 10 iPhone pictures or one moderate video.
  - edgyquant 1mo ago
    Developers aren’t what scaled commits/pushes are they claim it went from ~1 billion a year to doing more than that a month
    - Scubabear68 1mo ago
      So in other words, a 12x increase - which is exactly that I already responded to. A 12x increase in volume should not be world ending for Microsoft given that the number of developers in the world is a pretty small baseline number to start from.

edgyquant 1mo ago

It is though. Maybe you think they should be doing a better job but 12-24xing scale when you were already handling billions of commits is definitely understandable to me. It just does feel like they should have some way of ensuring customers, paying ones, don’t have to suffer so much.

ajasmin 1mo ago
Lots of paying customers also depend on the open source part of GitHub to run their business.
- verve_rat 1mo ago
  That sounds like an opportunity for GitHub to clip the ticket for providing a way for those businesses to support those projects more directly.
spockz 1mo ago
Yes. It seems that at the very least repositories owned by paying customers should be processed on priority threads. And perhaps throttle commits/pushes to repos where there are a lot of pushes from the same person all the time. This can be effectively throttled at the push level.
- user43928 1mo ago
  If I hadn't already switched to GitLab long ago, I'd certainly do so when my pushes to GitHub are throttled.
Scubabear68 1mo ago
First off, there aren’t that many developers in the world compared to consumers. Taking every developer in the world and multiplying by 12x-24x is not a-lot compared to many consumer oriented sites. Second, you can’t ignore the payloads, even an AI mostly text push is nothing compared to, say, 10 iPhone pictures or one moderate video.
- edgyquant 1mo ago
  Developers aren’t what scaled commits/pushes are they claim it went from ~1 billion a year to doing more than that a month
  - Scubabear68 1mo ago
    So in other words, a 12x increase - which is exactly that I already responded to. A 12x increase in volume should not be world ending for Microsoft given that the number of developers in the world is a pretty small baseline number to start from.