| ▲ | csbrooks 4 hours ago |
| > commits were on pace to hit 14 billion in 2026, up from 1 billion in 2025 So AI means 14x the checkins? That's not 14x features completed, but still... wow. |
|
| ▲ | N_Lens 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| AI has 100x'd our productive capacity such that we're moving at unforeseen speeds at digging holes and refilling them! |
| |
| ▲ | shimman 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is too generous, they aren't even filling in the holes. | | |
| ▲ | californical 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s filling in a lot of the holes, but it’s putting a very convincing paper cover over the ones it misses. So it’s very hard to find the ones it didn’t fill, better hope your most valuable customers don’t walk over the paper ones! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 3eb7988a1663 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am surprised it is that low. The Bun Zig-to-Rust AI port was 6755 commits in like two weeks. If you make 10 commits per working day, that is 2500/year. While that is (hopefully) the upper end of the distribution, several companies have loudly encouraged engineers to light tokens on fire to the AI gods, so it only takes a handful of the devout to push up the average in gas town like ventures. |
|
| ▲ | BobbyTables2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is that even a lot? Spread over a year, roughly estimating a generous 4 kbytes of data per commit, comes out to a throughput of a little under 2 MB/s. Of course, it isn’t spread out uniformly and there is also a lot of hashing and other things going on. Maybe pulls and clones drive more I/O ? |
| |
| ▲ | 3eb7988a1663 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I suspect there is a cacophony of work that happens when a commit hits the server. That request needs to get replicated, git repositories need to be repacked, pull requests need to calculate diffs, CI jobs need to execute, on and on. That's also just assuming the good-faith usage. There are probably plenty of adversarial and poorly behaved scrapers that are putting additional load on the system. | | |
| ▲ | jamesfinlayson 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Recalculate percentage of each language in the repo, recalculate top contributors, recalculate the stats for the committer's profile etc etc. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aperocky 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That commit count alone should not become any problem for infrastructure, even for Azure. They probably developed some ungodly mess with actions that did not/could not translate very well on Azure infrastructure. |
|
| ▲ | nomel 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Seems very reasonable, from my use. I commit much more often, as checkpoints, with branch rules that prevent force pushes/deletions, so the agents can't delete anything. And, suspect MS is only counting commits, and not the eventual squashes to one commit. |
| |
| ▲ | larusso 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And every checking runs a whole CI run? We had it internally with our teams that open a PR to then push like 10-20 more commits but never actually interested in the client builds etc. turned out they opened the PR as a checkmark/ way to share the current state.
We set cooldowns and auto cancel for the ci. And then there is the developer who uses the CI compute to run tests instead of running them locally for various reasons.
We had to remind that compute isn’t for free. | | |
| ▲ | nomel 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nope. You can configure CI to not run for every commit of every branch (seems insane to have full CI for every commit, unless you don't allow your devs to push until done with something, which also seems insane). | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
