Mostly people who have this argument don't have a code base large enough to run into actual limitations of git. They run CI with wonky java implementations of git and/or have giant amounts of binaries in their repos. Actually having Gigabytes of source code is pretty rare.
> and/or have giant amounts of binaries in their repos.
Firstly, it's not "giant amounts of binaries" it's "a very small amount of binaries". A few GB is enough to cause significant problems.
Secondly, This _is_ an issue with git. If my project requires binary files, git should handle it. How should we handle logos in a mobile app, branding images on a website, audio files for background? That's before you get to the question of "how does a video game store the source version of a 100GB worth of compressed assets?"
Git LFS is a reasonably good example of git being half baked. It is provider dependent, and requires configuring separately on both the server and client. It turns git into a centralised VCS, removing the option of working offline in the process.
A bit like submodules, LFS has its own warts that seem to multiply when you add more people to the mix. Working with git LFS has been the _only_ time the solution to my problem has been "nuke and clone again", in almost 15 years using source control.
Last time I used git LFS, it didn't support ssh cloning at all, and the issue had been open for years at that time.
It depends on the size of the company. The Linux kernel has about 1500 active developers. This is a lot, but many companies also exist that reach this size.
I think another thing that matters is how you store branches/code under review. In Linux, each team/person has their own repo. The main "Linus" repo has mostly the finished code. In a company it is much more common for everyone to store their unfinished code centrally. Perhaps this also accounts for some increase in size.
