To be fair, they did spend years not adding features. (Only really starting to add features when the Dear GitHub letter came out) It seems like they spent that time wisely just investing in stuff like this. GitHub are in a unique position where they spent so long ignoring features while having a large team. I feel like for the majority of teams these sort of investments are rarely possible because feature work is required.
It's been years... 7? with great features that go well beyond the letter. Yes gh was stagnant but this is pretty well in the past and your points have almost no current relevance.
I only brought up dear GitHub because I am sure people wouldn't have had an idea what I was talking about.
> Yes gh was stagnant but this is pretty well in the past and your points have almost no current relevance.
When my point is they used a bunch of time that other companies wouldn't give to build a solid foundation it seems very much that the past, that being the foundation, is very relevant. My entire point, is that they're in a very unique position a position that others can't really fairly expect since very few companies are able to ignore features for such a long time. This isn't to bash github. This is to put into persective what they've done and if others can do it. It removes the whole "GitHub did it so..." thing that many will suggest down the line.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should also mention that I didn't actually read the article before leaving my comment. I know, I know, shame on me!
But on a more serious note, I think it's important to recognize that while AI has made incredible strides in recent years, there is still a lot of work to be done on the creative side. Many texts generated by AI tend to have a similar structure or tone, and it's not always easy to tell them apart from human-generated text.
>and this has resulted in real tangible benefits such as better database connection handling, faster view rendering, and improved security posture.
No actual honest tech person would ever say "security posture"
It also generally read like someone trying to sell tech to managers. I wouldn't blink an eye if something like that was posted on corporate blog because that's exact type of worm-speech they use
I particularly appreciate the fact that GitHub's weekly upgrade process for Rails and Ruby is not just about staying up to date with the latest versions, but also about contributing back to the community and strengthening their engineering team. It's great to see a company that values the importance of investing in their frameworks and treating them as an extension of their application.
One thing I'm curious about is how GitHub handles potential incompatibilities that may arise from these frequent upgrades. The article mentions that each Rails upgrade incorporates only a small number of changes, which makes it easier to understand and dig into if there are any issues. However, I wonder if there are any specific strategies or tools that GitHub uses to mitigate the risk of unexpected changes from an unknown location.