I was casting doubt on whether or not they need a new VCS to achieve their goal in the first place, not providing an opinion about the "right" number of PRs. Like most things coming out of these labs it's hard not to look at it as marketing. Their "changes merged per day" is absolutely meaningless unless you know the nature of those changes. I could make a graph like this by making tons of agent-based empty commits. That's not a problem that actually needs a solution, though. Furthermore, they _didn't even build a new VCS_, they copied one that existed and made a bunch of noise about it.
replyGoogle and Meta hit these sorts of limits over a decade ago. They then built new VCS stuff to handle it, Meta's part is the subject of this submission. This was even pre-agents.
replyGit is just not suited to truly large monorepos, and it won't ever be. That's totally fine, of course. Less of a monoculture here would be great.
fwiw I've heard accounts that Google's source control is also creaking under the weight of AI code changes, and that there's already a new frontend to it with backend revisions on the way too. When GitHub and Google and Anthropic all simultaneously have VCSs that start buckling I think it's safe to say it's a real phenomenon and not marketing.
replyDid they make a bunch of noise about it, or did HN? This place loses its mind every time OpenAI or Anthropic posts a blog.
replyThere is no distinction at this point. If you know your blogs always get picked up by HN, and they do know this, then you know your blog is a de facto and gratis marketing channel and will use it as such.
reply