R/place for Git – Open-source Git server sustaining 567 pushes/s
Comments on “R/place for Git – Open-source Git server sustaining 567 pushes/s”
Claim-checked. Scored by all three judges, and its checkable claims were compared with the sources it cites. How far stories are checked
Reason Machines released Aspen, an open-source (Apache 2.0) Git server that follows the design OpenAI describes for its internal Pando backend: per-branch compare-and-swap in Postgres, and fetches served from stored packs rather than rebuilt ones. The company reports 567 pushes a second for five minutes on one 8-core server, with a 208 ms median, but this is its own single measurement on git.git and is unverified. It also says rates drop on very large repositories. The project is pre-alpha and warns against storing data you cannot lose.
Why it ranked
No. 11 of 107 with a score of 0.65. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.88) and technical depth (0.87), lowest on audience breadth (0.58). The judges disagreed most on substantiated (spread 0.44), so the story is marked contested. Placed No. 11, No. 27 by score alone: the placement terms moved other stories past it.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Open-source Git server release with a detailed architecture explanation and a self-reported benchmark (567 pushes/s); technically deep and useful for infra builders, but early-stage and self-measured, with a promotional canvas demo element.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A substantive open-source Git server release with clear architecture, tradeoffs, reproducible performance measurements, testing methodology, deployment options, and honest limitations. It is highly relevant to agent-heavy development and repository infrastructure, though still pre-alpha.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.65total under rubric v2.3Contestedjudges differ by 0.44 on substantiated
- Significance0.61
- Reader interest0.80
- Audience breadth0.58
- Practical relevance0.73
- Substantiated0.77
- Technical depth0.87
- New information0.88
- Counts against: Promotional0.21
- Counts against: Overclaim0.24
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.66 | 0.45 | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.27 | +0.24 | +0.146 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.20 | +0.26 | +0.208 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.62 | 0.50 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.12 | +0.13 | +0.075 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.78 | 0.60 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.20 | +0.22 | +0.160 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.94 | 0.50 | 0.86 | 0.77 | 0.44 , above the contested threshold | +0.05 | +0.038 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.12 | +0.05 | +0.044 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.10 | +0.05 | +0.044 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.09 | 0.35 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.26 | −0.19 | −0.039 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.18 | −0.11 | −0.026 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.649 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.649 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-11-07/11/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-07/11.svg" alt="Ranked #11 on Rubric, 7 Nov 2026" width="238" height="28"></a>Claim check
Claim check: 1 matches source · 5 no source given · 2 couldn’t check. Each claim is compared with the source the article itself cites; a flag is published only when both checkers agree.
No source givenBenchmark result
On one 8-core server with S3 Standard and a 4-core Postgres, pushing to git.git, Aspen sustained 567 pushes a second for five minutes with no errors.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “Aspen sustained 567 pushes a second for five minutes with no errors”
The source says No source to compare with.
No source givenNumber
Aspen's median push latency was 208 ms and its 99th percentile was 314 ms, with each push durable in S3 and Postgres before Git printed "ok".
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “with a median push of 208 ms and a 99th percentile of 314 ms”
The source says No source to compare with.
Matches sourceNumber
Cursor published that its Git server Origin handles up to 120 pushes a second on S3 Standard and more than 300 on S3 Express One Zone, with every push to a repository going through one log.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “up to 120 pushes a second on S3 Standard, and more than 300 on the faster S3 Express One Zone, with every push to a repository going through one log”
The source says “Using S3 Standard, we can sustain up to 120 pushes/s while compacting and replicating the compacted data to all other nodes”
Source cited by the article: cursor.com/blog/git-at-any-scale
Couldn’t checkNumber
OpenAI reports that Pando cut median push latency by nearly 80%, serves a petabyte of Git data a day from a handful of cores, and handles clones that fill a 10 Gbps link.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “median push latency down by nearly 80%, a petabyte of Git data served a day from a handful of cores, and clones that fill a 10 Gbps link”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: openai.com/index/scaling-git-at-openai
Couldn’t checkCausal conclusion
OpenAI built Pando, an internal Git backend, to get past scaling limits with its monorepo, as described in "Scaling Git at OpenAI".
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “OpenAI hit this wall with their monorepo and wrote up how they got past it in “Scaling Git at OpenAI”. Their answer is Pando, an internal Git backend”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: openai.com/index/scaling-git-at-openai
No source givenCausal conclusion
Aspen has no per-repository push ceiling like Cursor Origin's because it only orders pushes to the same branch.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “Aspen only orders pushes to the same branch, so it has no per-repository ceiling of that kind”
The source says No source to compare with.
No source givenNumber
Aspen lands changes on main at about 4 a second, limited by round trips rather than load.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “Aspen manages about 4 a second that way, limited by round trips rather than load”
The source says No source to compare with.
No source givenNumber
One Reason took Aspen from first commit to public in four days, over 151 merged pull requests.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “one Reason took it from first commit to public in four days, over 151 merged pull requests”
The source says No source to compare with.
Also covered by
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 2 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 7 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.