What I don't understand from the blog post is what's different in this offering than github - is it just the agentic tie ins where I can ask my agent to make changes while browsing the PR?
Are there any fundamental differences, ie ways of working that solve the worktrees problem?
Expect a lot more from us.
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.
What are your plans for actions, workflows, checks, etc.
Are there any plans for compatibility with GitHub's APIs?
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.
It seems to have 2 way sync of PRs, issues, issue comments etc, so it must be pretty much the same data model, so they could probably have a compatible API.
Experimenting with your "scalability?" mean?
[dead]
There seems to be basically nothing new here
Except it promises not to crash regularly.
I don't really see that as a USP considering;
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
GitHub is crashing due to scaling pressure. Something GH is much more equipped to solve long term.
are they? given this has been happening frequently over past year and there's been minimal clear communication on their end on how they plan to address this
Azure is at capacity; GH offers a lot of services for free or heavily discounted. Especially when its public repo. These aren't profit generating for Microsoft, so they are not the priority with the capacity Azure has available. GH is probably struggling with these capacity and budget constraints. They also still have some AWS and non-azure DCs in use.
Once Azure's massive spend is online things will slowly get better.
>These aren't profit generating for Microsoft
Aren't they are training their LLM on public repo, to me it's seem like a gold mine.
Anyone can train LLMs on public GitHub repos
How long term are we talking here? Github was acquired in 2018...
I think GH/Microsoft got caught by surprise to the huge usage number increase as a result of LLMs. Microsoft started rolling all of its DCs to OpenAI around 2019-2020 to begin LLM training, then we saw a huge GH increase in late 2024 and Azure was just out of capacity for infinite GH scale.
I guess we should all do our part to alleviate poor Microsoft's burden by migrating to better services.
They're really not, given they're running on Azure.
They're actually ramping back up on AWS after Azure failed to scale to their needs.
They planned to be fully off AWS in 2027 but they're continuing to ramp usage.
Azure doesn't scale.
Is there any data on Azure being terrible with stability? Would love to see data than anecdotal stories.
There isn't and if there is it probably doesn't matter in GH's case. People are just speculating with zero knowledge.
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.
The idea is that it's like Github but it stays up even as your commit/CI frequency increases. As a customer I'm stoked and looking forward to fully switching over as that's exactly what I want.
Calling it a GitHub that works is just preposterous. Cursor/spacetwitterai have no experience keeping a system like that up.
It was probably written 95% by an LLM and has only a few people (if any at all) that understand major parts of the system end to end.
It will eventually have the same uptime issues as GH (or worse) with less ability to provide stable fixes.
Probably has better uptime, tho I think everyone beats github on this right now.