Post

Josh Berkus
@fuzzychef.org

I don't think I'd want it. Per them, it's a return to centralized version control servers, ala Subversion. They might have a reason for that model, but I don't.

The New Stack@thenewstack.io

Claude helped Anthropic outgrow its Git infrastructure — and build the replacement. But the company says Scion is too specialized to release for other teams.

bit.lyAnthropic built its own git replacement for AI-scale coding. But you can’t have it.Claude helped Anthropic outgrow its Git infrastructure — and build the replacement. But the company says Scion is too specialized to release for other teams.

14 reposts46 likes

Josh Berkus
@fuzzychef.org

I only deal with merge conflicts around 1% of the time. However ... part of that is self-training to avoid them, what if I didn't have to? Worth thinking about.

Justin Sunseri
@jmsunseri.bsky.social

with the pace of development going up for my team we all might have 5 to 10 MR in flight at any given time and conflicts for me are increasing in frequency rapidly

Tom Yedwab
@tomyedwab.com

Based on how many software teams' work grinds to an absolute halt whenever GitHub goes down, I believe the majority of git users use it as a centralized VCS already.

Nick Gerakines
@ngerakines.me

Disclaimer: big git fan, worked at GitHub Subversion wasn’t bad, and there are a lot of really good alternatives because Git is not one size fits all. A lot of very large, high throughput engineering organizations got a lot out of subversion

Josh Berkus
@fuzzychef.org

Hey, don't get me wrong, Subversion was a HUGE advance in version control in 2004 (ask anyone who used CVS), and quite a few organizations treat git like a central-server VCS anyways. But, I work in open source, and there the advantages to distributed VCS are enormous ...