Are there any fundamental differences, ie ways of working that solve the worktrees problem?
We wanted to release a beta so people could start experimenting with our scalability and extensibility themselves. Over the next few weeks, you can expect a handful of features starting to change source control to better understand and work with agents.
I have a lot of dev tooling which assumes code is stored on public GitHub and/or GitHubEnterprise. This produces some degree of lock-in, in that all that code would have to be rewritten to migrate to something else. (Yes, AIs can help, but they still don't make migration effortless.)
The major Git hosters tend to implement roughly the same concepts, albeit with lots of little variations. It would be great if there were some sort of standardised API everyone implemented. In the absence of that, it makes sense for people to emulate the incumbent's APIs as a de facto standard, just like how other vendors copy OpenAI's APIs for talking to LLMs.
I'd never put my data on anything owned by Musk. Period. I'd take lower availability from GitHub or a worse alternative (feature-wise) than move Origin.
They planned to be fully off AWS in 2027 but they're continuing to ramp usage.
Azure doesn't scale.
Once Azure's massive spend is online things will slowly get better.
Aren't they are training their LLM on public repo, to me it's seem like a gold mine.
1. SpaceXAI has shown no track record of being able to maintain uptime
2. By nature, any GitHub alternative is going to be a tiny fraction of the scale, so keeping it up should be expected
It will eventually have the same uptime issues as GH (or worse) with less ability to provide stable fixes.