[IshKebab]

> When Micorosoft adopted Git for Windows, they faced this problem and solved it.

On Windows. On Linux Git still doesn't scale well to very large repos. Before you say "but Linux uses git!", we're talking repos that are much bugger than Linux.

Also the de facto large file "solution" is LFS, which is another half baked idea that doesn't really do the job.

You sound like you're offended that Git isn't perfect because you like it so much. But OP is 100% right here; these are things that Git doesn't do well. It's ok to really like something that isn't perfect. You don't have to defend flaws that it clearly has.

[WorldMaker]

>> When Micorosoft adopted Git for Windows, they faced this problem and solved it.

> On Windows. On Linux Git still doesn't scale well to very large repos.

All of Microsoft's solutions for git scaling have been cross-platform. Even VFS had a FUSE driver if you wanted it, but VFS is no longer Microsoft's recommended solution either, having moved on to things like sparse "cone" checkouts and commit-graphs, almost all of which is in mainline git today.

I also find it funny the complaint that git scales worse on Linux than Windows given how many Windows developers I know with file operation speed complaints on Windows that Linux doesn't have (and is a big reason to move to Windows Dev Drive given the chance, because somewhat Linux-like file performance).

[IshKebab]

`fsmonitor` is still only available for Mac and Windows.

https://git-scm.com/docs/git-config#Documentation/git-config...

[WorldMaker]

Fair enough, though there is a hook to provide your own on Linux: https://git-scm.com/docs/githooks#_fsmonitor_watchman

[graemep]

How common are repos bigger than Linux?

Linux also has the huge advantage of an ecosystem, tools and integrations. It is overkill for small projects and there are friendlier alternatives for those - but git wins because it is what everyone knows. Something aimed at the small number of large projects will suffer the same problem.

[gertop]

> How common are repos bigger than Linux?

In terms of number of commits, Linux is probably bigger than most. In terms of storage size, almost any video game project will be significantly bigger.

It's no secret that git is very bad at handling large binary files.

[graemep]

So this is very specifically for things like games with large binary assets?

[IshKebab]

No, large companies using monorepos will have repos much bigger than Linux even without large binary assets. Apparently Linux has ~10 commits per hour. I probably do ~10 commits per week. So a team of ~150 mes produces commits at a fast rate than Linux. Very rough estimate but it takes less than you'd think.

Also if you vendor a few dependencies that quickly increases the size.

[Spivak]

You don't even need game assets, your company's icon library is likely enough to tip the scales into territory git doesn't handle well.

[Wytwwww]

> really like something that isn't perfect. You don't have to defend flaws that it clearly has.

Certainly true. But it's not clear at all how does the product solve these specific problems (they say "Painless Scalability" which sounds nice but did they try developing any 100+ GB projects with massive numbers of commits/branches on it?)