I'd have thought so from the headline + initial content but then they say that the horizontal scale techniques are basically carrying over from the existing architecture (where it seems the problem is?) and this is mostly to help with what they call "vertical scale" (intra-repo scalability). They also admit right after that the most active repos today will receive short bursts of at most dozens of writes.

So this seems like really useful planning for a near future that likely helps prevent more issues but isn't really meant to help current issues. Am I reading this right?

Of course improvements like this are always useful either way. Not dunking here at all.

https://cursor.com/blog/git-at-any-scale

Hope it helps improve reliability, it was getting hard to defend GitHub with all the recent outages.

Sure, it's nice that you can technically handle it, but to me it sounds like at that point something has gone absolutely horribly wrong in the way you set up your agents. Last time I checked, GitHub was intended as a platform to upstream finished work items, not a realtime cross-agent chat channel.

Handling thousands of git pushes per second implies thousands of issues, thousands of PRs, tens of thousands of comments, thousands of Actions runs, and dozens of releases. How's that part of their infra going to scale?

How about introducing rate limits instead, nudging people to not have agents push every individual single-line changes to GH, but instead have them collaborate as a local cluster and only upstreaming PR-sized chunks of finished work?

If you still need thousands of pushes per second you'd be looking at millions of lines of code, and at that point you're looking at an insane monorepo which is growing at a rate of terabytes per day, and which basically instantly becomes unusable due to being impossible to clone or check out.

Edit: https://assets.theregister.com/2026/04/04/azure_talent_exodu... The blog post that story is based on was also on HN.

Edit2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242 (1297 points)

Imagine the token costs!

My company with about 60 devs in the backend dev slack channel probably produces less commits per year together.

Does my company already belong to the permanent AI underclass?

Pretty much everything in Git can be abstracted away as “immutable blobs that can be conveniently content-indexed” and an “event log”. The former is inherently parallel and the latter can be partitioned by repo.

The volume of metadata events that require synchronisation or similar transactional semantics seems low enough per partition to allow off-the-shelf systems to handle without a custom storage solution…

Multiple terabytes is no problem out of the box. You get exclusive locking of files. You can easily take partial checkouts of the monolith. Centralization is a feature in this particular context. Git works great if the need for coordination is moderate. If you've got thousands of automated developers with their hands in the cookie jar, exclusive locks start to look really compelling. Perforce sucks with a highly distributed team, but in the case of an AI agent swarm we presumably have the ability to instantly nuke an agent's checkout if needed. I don't have to contact the agent and wait for them to get out of bed.

Holding on for dear life and failing is more like it.