We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by toyg » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:01 AM UTC

cornholio wrote: post #55

grogenaut wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorceforge predates git by about 11 years. As do several other projects like google code. Its not a new idea. Or basically most source control systems. Git, actually, is the more unique idea, of a DVCS... versus a cVCS...

git is not a new idea, various features of git existed in various SCMs for decades. The distributed aspect existed in Bitkeeper too, for example. But it took a big brain with a systemic view of the problem and solutions space to bring them all together - in a lighting fast implementation to boot.

I don't think technical features were the key to git's success. What really made the difference was:

1. it was free;

2. it was sponsored by the most fashionable project of the time (Linux);

3. it did not require a server;

4. because it was FOSS, people could extend it without asking anyone's permission; and...

5. ...once GitHub appeared, simplifying the PR process, the network effect did its thing.

Git was hard to use and to understand. It did not win on technical features alone, as you said there were plenty of alternatives. It won because of community and network effects.

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

#242

Post by dagurp » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:03 AM UTC

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…

The biggest problem with Jujutsu is the name. I would love to hear a Swedish person try to pronounce it.

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

#243

Post by abc123abc123 » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:04 AM UTC

echelon wrote: post #223

Eufrat wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the way!

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

#244

Post by abc123abc123 » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:04 AM UTC

imp0cat wrote: post #232

echelon wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So it will be exactly like git, but with a monthly subscription fee.

And AI... always add AI!

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

#245

Post by pbkompasz » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:08 AM UTC

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…

Yes, you may be fine with git, but can you say the same thing about AI agents? /s

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

#246

Post by palata » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:09 AM UTC

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…

VCs have no clue. They have money and therefore they are in a dominant position. Everybody around them (professionally) is trying to flatter them and convince them that they should invest in their project.

I had a few interactions with VCs (both professional and personal), where I didn't care because I wasn't benefitting from them. One of them was "an expert in CRISPR and blockchain" (WTF?) and... well I didn't need much time to see that he did not understand what a "hash" was. He was mostly an expert at repeating stories he had been told about how he would make a ton of money with the latest bullshit he didn't understand.

The truth is, it's like trading. You diversify the investments and hope that the economy goes up (respectively that one of the startups you invested in gets profitable). The only thing a VC has to do is verify that they don't invest in a fraud, but even that is hard given that they never understand the technology enough to say it's worth it (they often invest in shiny bullshit).

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

#247

Post by tankenmate » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:10 AM UTC

As long as this tool doesn't break "fast forward merge" and proper linear history and allows you do delete PRs unlike its GitHub progenitor then I'm happy.

I have found that a number of times GitHub's idea of "convenient" comes either from 1) not understanding git fundamentals such that it closes off possible workflows, or 2) pushing a philosophy on users, i.e. I know better than you, so I'm going to block you.

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

#248

Post by red_admiral » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:12 AM UTC

I'm still not convinced we need a replacement for git.

> The old model assumed one person, one branch, one terminal, one linear flow.

Um, there's more than one flow out there? Feature branches are usually "one person, lots of branches, squish at the end". Since when is Git linear? Some of them even come with their own scripts or GUIs.

I'm even less convinced that something that's raised $17M already will provide a free-as-in-beer solution.

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

#249

Post by gyanchawdhary » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:14 AM UTC

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…

@fxtentacle I’m at the airport and spat out my coffee reading your comment .. this is legendary and super funny ! Happy Friday to you kind sir

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

#250

Post by red_admiral » Fri, Apr 10, 2026, 9:15 AM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #26

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…

I like git, it works perfectly fine on my command line. I do wonder, though, if it would have been designed differently if the whole “code forge” sort of application (or whatever GitHub and the like are called) was envisioned at the time. Pull requests aren’t even a concept in git proper, right? It seems like a kind of important type of tool. Even though git is awesome, we don’t need a monoculture.

Indeed they're not; they live on the 'user layer' rather than the 'application layer'. That's not to say many git-frontends (IntelliJ, Sourcetree, Github desktop) don't support them, but "git pullrequest" isn't a thing.

Edit: see "git request-pull" as mentioned below (file:///C:/Program%20Files/Git/mingw64/share/doc/git-doc/git-request-pull.html) but what it does is write "a pretty email" (the other poster's words) to STDOUT.