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

311–320 of 785 posts

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

#311

Post by EliRivers »

mcdeltat wrote: post #263
abc123abc123 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And AI... always add AI!

Upon every commit, AI will review your code to check if it's worth committing or not (after all, disk space is expensive these days!). If the AI finds the code is not up to scratch, it will be reverted and you'll be given a chance to try again. Then, we will develop (read: sell) AI agents that will ingest a proposed code change (created by your front-line agent), and iteratively refactor it until the commit agent acc…

If the AI finds the code is not up to scratch, it will be reverted and you'll be given a chance to try again.

That's the Platinum Premier tier. If you're on the regular tier, paying the minimum, the AI will silently fix all that right up for you.

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

#312

Post by m_rpn »

palata wrote: post #246
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…

An expert on crisps maybe XD? i'm not really sure about your last point on investing in frauds, i guess they only care if and when the fraud gets exposed, they might purposely choose to do exactly that given the right conditions though, it is a completely perverted and deranged system at this point.

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

#313

Post by em-bee »

braggerxyz wrote: post #255
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…

> ... and sort LEGO bricks by colour You never sort by color, ever! You sort by form, and then throw every color of that specific form in one bin. If you throw every red brick in the same bin, you'll never find a specific formed red brick because to many red bricks. But if you first search by form and then by color, you are much faster.

counterpoint (don't take this to seriously):

there are to many types of bricks to sort by form. unless you have an inventory the size of a brick factory you can only sort by category or by size.

otherwise, sorting by color makes your collection aesthetically pleasing, and when you build, you usually want to use specific colors only to make your model look good.

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

#314

Post by petre »

hequmania wrote: post #259
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…

But we are not even get a replacement for git, we are getting a CLI on top of git. Since agents can use GH CLI and mcp very well, I'm very interested to see what is it that Git butler can do so much better (I also might be a bit sceptic, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).

> Git butler can do so much better

Not be tied to Microslop and migrated to Azure?

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

#315

Post by withinboredom »

martin-adams wrote: post #299
braggerxyz wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... and sort LEGO bricks by colour You never sort by color, ever! You sort by form, and then throw every color of that specific form in one bin. If you throw every red brick in the same bin, you'll never find a specific formed red brick because to many red bricks. But if you first search by form and then by color, you are much faster.

As someone who tried to sort many lego sets lately, I do like this. The problem lies that modern lego has so many unique forms that it feels like you'll have many bins with one or two pieces in.

You need to get some bins that have a top shelf like a toolbox. The low item counts go in the top shelf, segregate the bottom for efficiency. Bin by color.

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

#316

Post by speedgoose »

user34283 wrote: post #239
DonThomasitos wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

„Claude, merge these branches and resolve conflicts. Ask me if unclear.“ 16M$ VC money saved.

So far I have not let AI work with git, because I preferred handling version control myself. Does it work well for resolving merge conflicts in your experience?

Not the person you responded too, but in my experience the answer is a big yes.

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

#318

Post by baobun »

mcdeltat wrote: post #263
abc123abc123 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And AI... always add AI!

Upon every commit, AI will review your code to check if it's worth committing or not (after all, disk space is expensive these days!). If the AI finds the code is not up to scratch, it will be reverted and you'll be given a chance to try again. Then, we will develop (read: sell) AI agents that will ingest a proposed code change (created by your front-line agent), and iteratively refactor it until the commit agent acc…

Should have known better than asking the monkey paw for more decentralized compute.

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

#319

Post by aseipp »

drcongo wrote: post #289
mi_lk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a company built on top of Jujutsu, not jj itself

If I remember correctly, jj is one guy who works at Google. Which presents a separate worry, which is that one day, when jj gets popular enough, Google will consume it, make it shit, change the name of it every six months and then shut it down.

jj is not "one guy who works at Google" and the vast majority of submitted code comes from non-Google developers. Even if Google were to stop developing jj (they won't) the project would be healthy and strong.

There's some legal annoyances around e.g. CLA which was a result of being a side project of Google originally. Hopefully we'll move through that in due time. But realistically it's a much larger project at this point and has grown up a lot, it's not Martin's side project anymore.

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

#320

Post by Orygin »

heeton wrote: post #201
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…

So it's gambling that they can extract money from open source project, by repackaging most of the existing features through a nice UX and hope business gamble their tech stack on it.

Great use of 17 million dollars.

Post reply on HN