>At the same time, the larger tech companies (Meta and Google, specifically) ended up building off of hg and not git because (at the time, especially) git cannot scale up to their use cases.

Fun story: I don't really know what Microsoft's server-side infra looked like when they migrated the OS repo to git (which, contrary to the name, contains more than just stuff related to the Windows OS), but after a few years they started to hit some object scaling limitations where the easiest solution was to just freeze the "os" repo and roll everyone over to "os2".

▲

MASNeo 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

“roll everyone over to os2”

The IBM crowd may feel vindicated at last.

▲

kqr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have heard that the Google monorepo is called google3 but I don't know why. Maybe those things are common...

▲

ongy 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's the third attempt of building the mono repo.

But not the 3rd mono repo on the same technology to avoid some scaling limit.

▲

roca 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not that.

	▲	vasco 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for explaining!

▲

w0m an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

didn't msft write an ~entire new file system specifically to scale git to the windows code base?

I have fuzzy memories on reading about it.

	▲	jamesfinlayson 9 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I thought Microsoft made a number of improvements to git to allow it work with all of their internal repos.
	▲	landr0id 32 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They wrote something that allowed them to virtualize Git -- can't remember the name of that. But it basically hydrated files on-demand when accessed in the filesystem. The problem was I think something to do with like the number of git objects that it was scaling to causing crazy server load or something. I don't remember the technical details, but definitely something involving the scale of git objects.