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

541–550 of 785 posts

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

#541

Post by steveklabnik »

jiggunjer wrote: post #501
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…

Definitely not true about models knowing jj. I've had latest opus and gpt fail at revsets and fileset syntax, even hallucinating subcommands like jj move (maybe it existed before, interface is not stable). Luckily it's easy enough to not need them most of the time.

Yes, I use Claude with jj often, and it occasionally tries to use older commands like move. Most of the time it gets it right for me though, often plugins and such say to use git explicitly, and that's where it tends to stray.

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

#542

Post by devin »

jayd16 wrote: post #536

Seems fine I guess. I'm not a fan of Perforce but it does have some features that git still struggles with and needs to address to break into new customers. This Gitbutler seems to address some of them but I can't say it really feels next gen. I like the idea of parallel branches. I feel like you could probably get away with just creating multiple, named stages but having a full history is nice. P4 has multiple pendi…

Could you explain parallel branches vs what git offers today?

If it's to enable multi-agent scenarios, don't worktrees (at least in the local sense) allow for this?

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

#543

Post by conartist6 »

chaos_emergent wrote: post #529
conartist6 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I built a prototype, and then I rebuilt and rebuilt it and rebuilt it, and somewhere in there my understanding of how to think about what I was building completely flipped on its head. Then I rebuilt the version flipped on its head another several times until I finally understood it. You can see that on my Github, it's all public: https://github.com/conartist6 (public devlog on Discord). It's a pretty serious claim t…

The reality is that none of that shit matters if you can build a product that people use and want to pay for. I would back someone who has made a dollar off of a product over someone who has built a great product that no one uses 100% of the time. The reality is that you can make a successful business with okay engineering and great product insight. It's much more difficult to build a successful business with great e…

Yeah but that's the advice for 99% of people. The craziest things: things on the scale of digging through 50 years of compounding tech debt, they take time. Have you by any chance seen this talk? https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/a-whole-new-world

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

#545

Post by MyHonestOpinon »

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…

They are using fame and past success as a proxy. You would need to do it on the basis of your ideas and the work that you have done. Someone really knowledgable would need to dig deep on your work and then the VCs will need to trust these person(s). The other alternative might be to try to get traction with users like Linus did with git and hope that they like it enough that it becomes popular. But Linus had the advantage of being famous and highly respected already,

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

#547

Post by hequmania »

petre wrote: post #314
hequmania wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sounds like great use of 17M.

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

#548

Post by Nifty3929 »

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…

You can stop at bullet #1 and that's plenty to raise $17m on right there. No questions asked.

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

#549

Post by jlokier »

jcfrei wrote: post #221
progx wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should ai need this? A linear backlog is enough, a cache, for everything else they can create it new in a short time.

Another commenter explained it: It's about working on multiple branches in parallel. You can only check out one branch at a time currently in git - but with "but" you have all the changes just in memory so different agents can work on different branches at the same time.

Working on multiple branches in parallel is literally what Git was created for, and how it's been used since the very first version 20 years ago.

Other commenters mentioned worktrees, which let you check out different branches at the same time from a single local repo. That's convenient, but not required.

Git always supported "fast cloning" local repos as well. You just "git clone" from one directory to another. Then they are independent and you're free to decide what to merge back.

These days, agents can also fork their containers or VMs as often as required too, with copy-on-write for speed.

So that's four ways to work on multiple branches in parallel using Git that we already use.

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

#550

Post by Nifty3929 »

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…

That is an empirical question answered by the market. The way you get your answer is to build it, get it in front of people, and see if they use it. Then you will know.

Note that if you want to be the answer, then you have to prioritize other things than the technology. You can have the best product, but if nobody knows about it you're stuck.

Post reply on HN