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

511–520 of 785 posts

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

#511

Post by PunchyHamster »

sassymuffinz wrote: post #375
stingraycharles wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is the obvious solution. Multiple agents working on multiple features should use feature branches. Can’t believe how this whole AI movement seems to want to reinvent software engineering, poorly.

Their goal is not to give us a better tool, it's to get us to think our old tools are rubbish so we give them money instead.

to be entirely fair while git is getting better, the tooling UI/UX is still designed with expectation someone read the git book and understood exactly how it works.

Which should be basic skill on anyone dealing with code, but Git is not just programmer's tool any more for a long time so better UI is welcome

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

#512

Post by love2read »

bitbasher wrote: post #506

Real question--- why does one of the GitHub co-founders need to raise 17M for a venture? I'm certain they could fund it themselves. Is this more or less a marketing play than anything else?

Why do rich people raise money when they already have money?

1) because they can

2) it's their money, not company money, and again, why would you risk your own money when someone else wants to risk their money?

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

#513

Post by estimator7292 »

bitbasher wrote: post #506

Real question--- why does one of the GitHub co-founders need to raise 17M for a venture? I'm certain they could fund it themselves. Is this more or less a marketing play than anything else?

So that when the venture inevitably fails, VCs are the ones that lose money and the founders get a nice exit.

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

#514

Post by PunchyHamster »

pu_pe wrote: post #93

I actually believe we need to rethink Git for modern needs. Saving prompts and sessions alongside commits could become the norm for example, or I could imagine having different flags for whether a contribution was created by a human or not. This doesn't seem to be the direction these guys are going though, it looks like they think Git should be more social or something.

>Saving prompts and sessions alongside commits could become the norm for example, or I could imagine having different flags for whether a contribution was created by a human or not.

Yes, it could have syntax like

    git notes add -m "Claude prompt: foo fee faa foo"
and then the tooling could attach any metadata to it that is desired.

OH WAIT YOU CAN DO THAT ALREADY SINCE 2009

Seriously, the 90% complaints about git not being able to do something is just either RTFM or "well, it can, but could use some better porcelain to present to user"

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

#515

Post by PunchyHamster »

globular-toast wrote: post #172
pu_pe wrote: post #93

I actually believe we need to rethink Git for modern needs. Saving prompts and sessions alongside commits could become the norm for example, or I could imagine having different flags for whether a contribution was created by a human or not. This doesn't seem to be the direction these guys are going though, it looks like they think Git should be more social or something.

What do people expect to do with these saved prompts/contexts? Nobody is going to read through them, right? I suppose the thinking is LLMs will, but any decently active codebase will soon contain far too much context for any current LLM. Is this the same thinking behind cryonics, ie. we may be able to use this stuff one day so let's start saving it now? Hoarding has ruined many people and it will ruin us all if we're…

remove the existing code, add feature to the prompt and re-generate everything, probably

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

#516

Post by basket_horse »

conartist6 wrote: post #424
tiffanyh wrote: post #42

A lot of people seem confused about how they raised the money, but it’s actually a pretty easy VC pitch. - It’s from one of GitHub’s cofounders. - GitHub had a $7.5B exit. - And the story is: AI is completely changing how software gets built, with plenty of proof points already showing up in the billions in revenue being made from things like Claude Code, Cusor, Codex, etc. So the pitch is basically: back the team th…

I think I have just as good a shot at building what comes after git as their team does, and perhaps quite a lot better. I'm not famous though, I'm just a good engineer who is patient, inquisitive, and determined enough to spend the last five years of my life on nothing but this. My question is: say the investor believes that some new platform will win out over Github. How do I make the case that it will be mine over…

No offense, but why should I believe you? The guy is famous because he has a track record of success doing similar projects. Of course that doesn’t guarantee success, but I’d wager it makes it statistically more likely than a random person. Starting a successful company is not all about good engineering.

Have you built a prototype and tried to pitch any VCs? Or are you just asking rhetorical questions?

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

#517

Post by conartist6 »

spaghetdefects wrote: post #498
conartist6 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I have just as good a shot at building what comes after git as their team does, and perhaps quite a lot better. I'm not famous though, I'm just a good engineer who is patient, inquisitive, and determined enough to spend the last five years of my life on nothing but this. My question is: say the investor believes that some new platform will win out over Github. How do I make the case that it will be mine over…

Sadly you can't, and this is a huge flaw in the venture capital model. They invest in people that they think other vcs will invest in. More often than not who your parents are matters more than anything (unless you've had a huge exit like the OP). They'll also throw money at you if you come from a rich family, not because they think you'll succeed, but because they want your family's money as LPs in their funds.

Well regardless of whether it's hard or impossible, I'm doing this. I'm going.

The problem they have is that they're betting git is a solid foundation to build on. A tectonic change like git actually being replaced wouldn't just eliminate their moat, it would leave them trapped on the wrong side of it.

I can't win their game, so I'm changing the game.

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

#519

Post by Sharlin »

mohsen1 wrote: post #75
tiffanyh wrote: post #42

A lot of people seem confused about how they raised the money, but it’s actually a pretty easy VC pitch. - It’s from one of GitHub’s cofounders. - GitHub had a $7.5B exit. - And the story is: AI is completely changing how software gets built, with plenty of proof points already showing up in the billions in revenue being made from things like Claude Code, Cusor, Codex, etc. So the pitch is basically: back the team th…

I watched video to see where my prompts etc are stored in a way that makes sense. But no, this is just a nicer git. We need a solution to all these 10k loc PRs.

> We need a solution to all these 10k loc PRs.

One of the most idiotic things about the whole LLM craze is the idea that we have to change all of our infrastructure to accommodate LLMs instead of figuring out how to train LLMs to make better commits.

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

#520

Post by PunchyHamster »

flohofwoe wrote: post #83
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…

Tbf, git is very much a problem that needs solving. It only works well for text data, the fact that it is decentralized adds a lot of complexity but doesn't matter for 99% of users since they use a centralized git forge like Github or Gitlab, and the UX is pretty much non-existent.

if you don't understand git you shouldn't be coding, full stop. The exact same skill set needed to write good code is required to use git in quick and efficient matter.

Then again, it is used for non-coding tasks, but any and all of it's UI problems are not from the method of storage (pretty much any modern VCS uses same "tree of linked snapshots of filesystem) so making one while still making it git compatible just with better ui (like Jujutsu) is very much possible

Post reply on HN