Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

blog.gitbutler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 785 posts

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#201

Post by heeton »

znnajdla wrote: post #191

I continue to be amazed at American capital allocation. $17M for an idea to improve Git? For a fraction of that money Ukrainian housewives build anti-drone air defence systems in their garage that protect their country. For that kind of money you could build an apartment block to ease the housing shortage. You could invest in electricity resilience and build mini nuclear power plants or a small wind farm. Soviet capi…

It’s not 17m for an idea to improve git.

It’s 17m for a tool which hopes to serve companies and charge money and make more than 17m in profit as a result.

If you look at the set of dev tooling, teams will frequently pay many hundreds per dev on things like CI, Git tools, code review, etc.

And to be fair, GitHub is really quite bad for a lot of workflows. I haven’t used gitbutler, but my team pays ~$30 a month per dev for tools which literally just provide a nicer interface for stacking PRs, because it saves us WAY more than that in time.

This isn’t even an egregious example of VC, it’s just an enterprise dev tooling bet.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#202

Post by satvikpendem »

latexr wrote: post #199
satvikpendem wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has always been skeptical of VC, ironically, so that's no indication of anything in the overall industry.

HN is not a hive mind with a single opinion. You get the extreme opinions of both sides and every nuance in between. There are people here who despise VC and people who live for it and think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

No, but trends are very prevalent, it is not a uniform random distribution.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#203

Post by rimliu »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #72
uwagar wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i am actually fine with how svn works.

Guessing you aren’t working with hundreds of collaborators in a distributed offline system. Which is what git was for and why svn wasn’t enough for that type of use case.

or using branches.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#204

Post by k4rli »

IshKebab wrote: post #163
tmountain wrote: post #125

I personally feel that: 1) Git is fine 2) I would not want to replace critical open source tooling with something backed by investor capital from its inception. Sure, it will be “open source “, but with people throwing money behind it, there’s a plan to extract value from the user base from day one. I’m tired of being “the product”. Critical open source tooltips by should spring from the community, not from corporate…

Git is fine. I would like something better than fine though, especially for dealing with rebase/merge conflicts where I would say Git is mediocre.

What about a vibecoded replacement with emojis and javascript?

Surely $trillion "ai" thing can generate a better solution than one Finnish guy 20 years ago.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#205

Post by hk__2 »

IshKebab wrote: post #163
tmountain wrote: post #125

I personally feel that: 1) Git is fine 2) I would not want to replace critical open source tooling with something backed by investor capital from its inception. Sure, it will be “open source “, but with people throwing money behind it, there’s a plan to extract value from the user base from day one. I’m tired of being “the product”. Critical open source tooltips by should spring from the community, not from corporate…

Git is fine. I would like something better than fine though, especially for dealing with rebase/merge conflicts where I would say Git is mediocre.

> Git is fine. I would like something better than fine though, especially for dealing with rebase/merge conflicts where I would say Git is mediocre.

You can define your own merge strategy that uses a custom executable to fix conflicts.

https://stackoverflow.com/a/24965574/735926

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#206

Post by rimliu »

toenail wrote: post #189
farouqjalabi wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gitbutler is backed by git. Gitbutler is essentially just ui for git which also allows you to have multiple branches. It isn't meant to replace git.

What does that even mean? Multiple branches is a git feature.

and worktrees too.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#207

Post by siquick »

znnajdla wrote: post #191

I continue to be amazed at American capital allocation. $17M for an idea to improve Git? For a fraction of that money Ukrainian housewives build anti-drone air defence systems in their garage that protect their country. For that kind of money you could build an apartment block to ease the housing shortage. You could invest in electricity resilience and build mini nuclear power plants or a small wind farm. Soviet capi…

It’s just gambling without the stigma of being called an addict.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#208

Post by rimliu »

Meleagris wrote: post #17

I recently switched to Jujutsu (jj) and it made me realize that “what comes after Git” might already exist. It turns out the snapshot model is a perfect fit for AI-assisted development. I can iterate freely without thinking about commits or worrying about saving known-good versions. You can just mess around and make it presentable later, which Git never really let you do nicely. Plus there’s essentially zero learning…

"I can iterate freely without thinking".

Vibecoding moto.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#209

Post by arnvald »

toenail wrote: post #189
farouqjalabi wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gitbutler is backed by git. Gitbutler is essentially just ui for git which also allows you to have multiple branches. It isn't meant to replace git.

What does that even mean? Multiple branches is a git feature.

I think it means parallel branches. Normally in git you can use one branch at a time. With agentic coding you want agents to build multiple features at the same time, each in a separate branch
Post reply on HN