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

221–230 of 785 posts

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

#221

Post by jcfrei »

progx wrote: post #127
jgauth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense to me. The new coding agents are drastically changing software development, and I think there's a lot of space for innovation in how version control tooling works in this new world.

Why should ai need this? A linear backlog is enough, a cache, for everything else they can create it new in a short time.

Another commenter explained it: It's about working on multiple branches in parallel. You can only check out one branch at a time currently in git - but with "but" you have all the changes just in memory so different agents can work on different branches at the same time.

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

#222

Post by amelius »

fxtentacle wrote: post #15

I feel like I really need to learn how to raise money. For $17M, one could probably build a vacuum robot prototype that’ll also clean up all of the kids toys and sort LEGO bricks by colour and size. Parents worldwide would love it. But instead, we get a replacement for Git. And I didn’t even bother to click the link because I’m fine with how Git works. On the list of pain points in my life, “what comes after Git” has…

Git is still pretty lacking in the area of big files. This is quite annoying if you're dealing with big deep learning data. So your LEGO vacuum robot could actually benefit from a better Git.

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

#223

Post by echelon »

Eufrat wrote: post #154
fxtentacle wrote: post #15

I feel like I really need to learn how to raise money. For $17M, one could probably build a vacuum robot prototype that’ll also clean up all of the kids toys and sort LEGO bricks by colour and size. Parents worldwide would love it. But instead, we get a replacement for Git. And I didn’t even bother to click the link because I’m fine with how Git works. On the list of pain points in my life, “what comes after Git” has…

Money is not given to good ideas (though, it doesn’t hurt). Money is given to friends . If you look at how VC (or really any network) funding circulates, it’s just people who are allowed to enter that circle and money just flows between them constantly. On one hand, you have trusted people who you are willing to give money, on the other hand, this inherently creates a clique. It reminds me how the Bohemian Club’s slo…

> Money is given to friends.

Money is given to ideas that might become billion dollar businesses and teams that look like they can do it. Pedigree, domain expertise, previous exits.

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

#224

Post by srdjanr »

globular-toast wrote: post #169
materielle wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he didn’t. He built a proof of concept demo in 7 days then handed it off to other maintainers to code for real. I’m not sure why this myth keeps getting repeated. Linus himself clarifies this in every interview about git. His main contributions were his ideas. 1) The distributed model, that doesn’t need to dial the internet. 2) The core data structures. For instance, how git stores snapshots for files changes in a…

He did what needed to be done. Linux similarly has thousands of contributors and Linus's personal "code contribution" is almost negligible these days. But code doesn't matter. Literally anyone can generate thousands of lines of code that will flip bits all day long. What matters is some combination of the following: a vision, respect from peers earned with technical brilliance, audaciousness, tenacity, energy, dedica…

The point was only that Linus didn't build git in 8 days and alone.

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

#225

Post by DonThomasitos »

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.

„Claude, merge these branches and resolve conflicts. Ask me if unclear.“

16M$ VC money saved.

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

#227

Post by eastabrooka »

leptons wrote: post #113
fxtentacle wrote: post #15

I feel like I really need to learn how to raise money. For $17M, one could probably build a vacuum robot prototype that’ll also clean up all of the kids toys and sort LEGO bricks by colour and size. Parents worldwide would love it. But instead, we get a replacement for Git. And I didn’t even bother to click the link because I’m fine with how Git works. On the list of pain points in my life, “what comes after Git” has…

>Why is nobody solving actual problems anymore? They went over this, in the documentary titled "Idiocracy". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFRzIOna2oQ

GitV2 - It's what Devs Crave.

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

#228

Post by bootsmann »

amelius wrote: post #222
fxtentacle wrote: post #15

I feel like I really need to learn how to raise money. For $17M, one could probably build a vacuum robot prototype that’ll also clean up all of the kids toys and sort LEGO bricks by colour and size. Parents worldwide would love it. But instead, we get a replacement for Git. And I didn’t even bother to click the link because I’m fine with how Git works. On the list of pain points in my life, “what comes after Git” has…

Git is still pretty lacking in the area of big files. This is quite annoying if you're dealing with big deep learning data. So your LEGO vacuum robot could actually benefit from a better Git.

Didn’t dvc try to fill this niche and absolutely fail at it?

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

#229

Post by gyulai »

dirkc wrote: post #183
gyulai wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like I really need to learn how to raise money. For $17M, one could probably ... People complaining about investors throwing stupid sums of money at stupid or trivial things unrelated (or only marginally related) to AI? ...sounds to me like the first glimpse of hope I have come across in this industry for half a decade.

Is it unrelated though? > Today, with Git, we're all teaching swarms of agents to use a tool built for sending patches over mailing lists. That's far from what is needed today.

Investor narrative pointing out a relationship is not the same as substantive technological overlap.

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

#230

Post by jampekka »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #152
ozozozd wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git isn’t Saas. git ≠ GitHub

The article is about a $17M funding round for GitButler. Which I assume has some revenue plan that you might qualify as SAAS. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There seems to be a bit of a trend that dev adjancent open source companies with not much monetization strategy are being bought off by AI giants. Most prominently Anthopic bought bun, OpenAI is buying Astral. So that may be the exit plan too.

Not sure what the business logic is. Maybe they are mostly acquihire. Or the companies just have so much money to throw around they just spray it everywhere. Whatever the reason, if the tools remain open source, the result for devs is probably better open source tools. At least until enshittification begins when the companies run out of funding, but hopefully the tools remain forkable.

Post reply on HN