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

381–390 of 785 posts

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

#381

Post by BatteryMountain »

farouqjalabi wrote: post #174
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…

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.

So.. worktrees?

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

#382

Post by siva7 »

sunir wrote: post #216
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…

4 McDonalds. That’s a better way of measuring it.

Honestly it is. Investors value my company like 4 Mcdonalds.

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

#383

Post by BatteryMountain »

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #215
arnvald wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can agents not checkout different branches and then work on them? It's what people also do. I have a hard time to understand what problem is even solved here.

claude can use worktrees.. so if you have a system with say 10 agents, each one can use a worktree per session.. no need to clone the the repo 10 times or work on branches. Worktreeees.

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

#385

Post by skydhash »

toyg wrote: post #241
cornholio wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

> Git was hard to use and to understand

So is ffmpeg and ImageMagick. Or Blender. Or Freecad. There are domains that do require some learning and training to properly use the available tool.

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

#386

Post by siva7 »

rimliu wrote: post #203
hdgvhicv wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

oh svn had branches. people just didn't know that they wanted a distributed cvs.

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

#387

Post by layer8 »

staticassertion wrote: post #373
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…

You didn't click the link. Who are you to say that they aren't solving actual problems? You might not be their target. The whole article is dedicated to explaining why they're building their product.

The article does a bad job at that, because it remains rather vague and doesn’t explain the concrete problems they are trying to solve, that aren’t either already solved by Git-linked issue trackers, or would be better solved by improving support in Git itself (like for stacked branches).

Building UI and auxiliary features on top of Git is a crowded space, it’s not clear what compelling innovation they are bringing to the table.

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

#388

Post by eproxus »

dwb wrote: post #119
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…

Yes, it’s fantastic. I have a post-tool-use hook for Claude Code to snapshot the repository for every edit. It’s like the built in file history feature but native in my VCS and works for my edits too. Don’t want to froth too much but JJ is my favourite piece of software in a while, and the fact that it’s not VC-funded is a major plus point.

Can you expand on this? How do you achieve it? Just a WIP JJ commit after every change or something more clever?

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

#389

Post by ggrab »

There's definitely a need for this, but the underlying reason there's a need for this is so beyond me. I've worked with a lot of Software Engineers over the years, even at FAANG, that didn't have a good technical understanding of git (basically, your repo is a tree structure, most commands are just about manipulating that tree in some way). I mean, just spend the hour to go through a git tutorial. There's so many great ones like the interactive one that shows the tree as you go through the levels. It's your profession. Also, I think another layer on top of Git as this seems to propose won't fix it -- once something non-obvious happens, these people continue to be stuck.

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

#390

Post by staticassertion »

layer8 wrote: post #387
staticassertion wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't click the link. Who are you to say that they aren't solving actual problems? You might not be their target. The whole article is dedicated to explaining why they're building their product.

The article does a bad job at that, because it remains rather vague and doesn’t explain the concrete problems they are trying to solve, that aren’t either already solved by Git-linked issue trackers, or would be better solved by improving support in Git itself (like for stacked branches). Building UI and auxiliary features on top of Git is a crowded space, it’s not clear what compelling innovation they are bringing t…

You can think that because you've read the article.
Post reply on HN