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

481–490 of 785 posts

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

#481

Post by functional_dev »

tadfisher wrote: post #38
bee_rider wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

git request-pull Docs: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull Generates a pretty email requesting someone to pull commits from your online repository. It's really meant for Linus to pull a whole bunch of already-reviewed changes from a maintainer's integration branch. The rough equivalent to GitHub's "pull request" is the "patch series", produced by: git format-patch Docs: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch…

You are right, PRs are not in git. format-patch and request-pull are originals designed for mailings lists. Github just put UI on top.

Interesting that DAG model means any branch from anywhere can be merged... the forge is just coordination.

Explored here if curious - https://vectree.io/c/git-graph-theory-logic

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

#482

Post by satvikpendem »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #352
satvikpendem wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I say it was a good idea?

Okay, please explain why the replies are funny.

Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog, you learn more but you kill it in the process.

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

#483

Post by 52-6F-62 »

imdsm wrote: post #270
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 feel exactly this way Why are we trying to replace git? What is the problem with git?

The same reasons the world needed AI for cats funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. How do you expect those precious people to do anything at all without a bi-yearly expenses-paid trip to Cabo and on-site baristas?

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

#484

Post by cindyllm »

conartist6 wrote: post #436
DrScientist wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly LLMs are tools which can be used for good or ill. The supplier of raw chemicals to the paint factory isn't really responsible for the river pollution. However you are right to point out there is a problem. Typically societies ( via governments ) try and fix by appropriately pricing the behaviours via regulation/laws ( fines or prison for the people doing it ). However making regulation/laws is hard. What's yo…

Oh it'll fix itself. Nature is like that. You might hit a moment where a lot of people whose only purpose in life is using Claude Code, um, well, starve. But yeah, nature is metal like that.

[dead]

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

#486

Post by schacon »

momocowcow wrote: post #297

Blog post written by llm. No thanks. Was their series A pitch also written by llm?

I would like to take this opportunity to kindly inform you that I wrote that post, as I write all of the blog posts on our blog (and everywhere else I write). You will never see something with my name on it that was written by AI. Thanks.

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

#487

Post by schacon »

latexr wrote: post #217

> I know what you’re thinking. You’re hoping that we’ll use phrases such as “we’re excited,” “this is just the beginning,” and “AI is changing everything”. While all those things are true Superbly tone deaf. The only people who might possibly want to read that are those already drinking your Kool-Aid, most everyone else can already smell the bullshit.

Ah, I see. You missed the part where that was funny.

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

#488

Post by IshKebab »

skydhash wrote: post #407
IshKebab wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> especially for dealing with rebase/merge conflicts where I would say Git is mediocre. It seems like everyone that hold this opinion want Git to be some magical tool that will guess their intent and automatically resolve the conflict. The only solutions other than surfacing the conflict are locking (transactions) or using some consensus algorithm (maybe powered by logical clocks). The first sucks and no one has been…

> It seems like everyone that hold this opinion want Git to be some magical tool that will guess their intent and automatically resolve the conflict.

Absolutely not. There are plenty of fairly trivial solutions where Git's default merge algorithm gives you horrible diffs. Even for cases as simple as adding a function to a file it will get confused and put closing brackets in different parts of the diff. Nobody is asking for perfection but if you think it can't be improved you lack imagination.

There are a number of projects to improve this like Mergiraf. Someone looked at fixing the "sliders" problem 10 years ago but sadly it didn't seem to go anywhere, probably because there are too many core Git developers who have the same attitude as you.

https://github.com/mhagger/diff-slider-tools

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

#489

Post by rowanG077 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #465
rowanG077 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your point is. Of course people who see and observe others on a daily basis in the flesh can determine much better whether they are trustworthy or not. They sure as hell don't think some random person who has no credibility is trustworthy.

The point is the definition of trust is flawed if what you're trying to measure is technical impact and quality or ability to execute?

[dead]

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

#490

Post by kordlessagain »

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…

Don't do that. Don't buy into the bullshit.
Post reply on HN