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

691–700 of 785 posts

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

#691

Post by PunchyHamster »

farouqjalabi wrote: post #583
PunchyHamster wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sooooo git worktree. It's exactly that. One repository dir checked out in different places with different branches.

Not quite, Gitbutler allows you to apply multiple branches to the code base at once. With codebases you will have multiple code bases not one. for example: It allows me to test coworkers branches with mine without merging or creating new branch. It has many features that makes it super easy to add patch to any commit in any branch

...I don't think you actually know how git works if you think that's the thing you can't do with git.

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

#692

Post by factorialboy »

yard2010 wrote: post #607
factorialboy wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I did was install GitButler via my OS's package manager, and open a local repo via the GUI. And I saw these malicious (pre-commit) git hooks installed by GitButler, without any confirmation, or prompt seeking my approval. I'm sure you folks will come up with a "technical explanation" or some "legal-marketing language" to cover up for this — but in my book — redirect `git commit` to `but commit` is dishonest and u…

You keep using the word malicious, what do you mean? What is the malice?

Silently replacing Git with `but`.

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

#693

Post by rurp »

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…

Reach out to investors that you or your friends/family have an existing relationship with. If that's not an option your odds of being funded are slim. Consider going to Stanford or networking with them another way; the latter being much easier if you're already wealthy.

This might sound like a joke or overly cynical but I'm being totally serious. Merit and product quality are only very loosely correlated with funding success at this stage.

The vast majority of projects don't get VC funded and of the small number that do most have some sort of relationship or other in into the funding world.

This doesn't mean you can't get funded, but it's a huge longshot. If you already have an income and some savings consider bootstrapping the project yourself, at least until you have some traction in the market.

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

#695

Post by morgoo »

gtowey wrote: post #658
da_chicken wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me it's not clear what the problem is that would require a redesign. The interface is still bad. Teaching people to use git is still obnoxious because it's arcane . It's like 1e AD&D. It does everything it might need to, but it feels like every aspect of it is bespoke. It's also relatively difficult to make certain corrections. Did you ever accidentally commit something that contains a secret that can't be in th…

The interface can be independent of the implementation. Under the hood git does everything you need. If learning to use it at a low level isnt appealing, then you can put an interface on top which is more ergonomic.

I'm a huge fan of lazygit

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

#696

Post by factorialboy »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #337
factorialboy wrote: post #192

Installed GitButler to try it out — and realized it installs malicious Git hooks to take over the git commit workflow: * pre-commit — The malicious one. It intercepted every `git commit` attempt and aborted it with that error message, forcing you to use `but commit` instead. Effectively a commit hijack — no way to commit to your own repo without their tool. * post-checkout — Fired whenever you switched branches. GitB…

So they decided to start "embrace, extend, and extinguish" directly with with "extinguish".

Pretty much, yes.

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

#697

Post by bloppe »

mervz wrote: post #623
MidnightRider39 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is how to make money from something that is more or less solved.

Yep, something that is sadly becoming more and more common. People with solutions spending insane money trying to convince others that a problem exists.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say these guys would never have raised if they didn't have "GitHub co-founder" on the first slide of the pitch deck

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

#698

Post by materielle »

ergocoder wrote: post #396
materielle wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he didn’t. He built a proof of concept demo in 7 days then handed it off to other maintainers to code for real. I’m not sure why this myth keeps getting repeated. Linus himself clarifies this in every interview about git. His main contributions were his ideas. 1) The distributed model, that doesn’t need to dial the internet. 2) The core data structures. For instance, how git stores snapshots for files changes in a…

That's just being pedantic for the sake of it. Git is decades old. Of course, there are tons of contributions after the first 10 days. Everyone knows that. He started it and built the first working version.

It’s not being pedantic.

The parent comments are arguing that 17million for git 2.0 is insane because Linux wrote the original in a week.

Except that’s not true. He sketched out a proof of concept in a week. Then handed it off to a team of maintainers who worked on it for the next two decades.

It’s also not pedantic because Linus himself makes this distinction. He doesn’t say he coded Git and specifically corrects people in interviews when they this.

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

#699

Post by materielle »

globular-toast wrote: post #169
materielle wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he didn’t. He built a proof of concept demo in 7 days then handed it off to other maintainers to code for real. I’m not sure why this myth keeps getting repeated. Linus himself clarifies this in every interview about git. His main contributions were his ideas. 1) The distributed model, that doesn’t need to dial the internet. 2) The core data structures. For instance, how git stores snapshots for files changes in a…

He did what needed to be done. Linux similarly has thousands of contributors and Linus's personal "code contribution" is almost negligible these days. But code doesn't matter. Literally anyone can generate thousands of lines of code that will flip bits all day long. What matters is some combination of the following: a vision, respect from peers earned with technical brilliance, audaciousness, tenacity, energy, dedica…

Im specifically pointing out the false history that Linus god-coded git and handed it to us on the 7th day.

In reality, it was a collaborative effort between multiple smart people who poured months and years of sweat into the thing.

I seem to agree with you. The real story is a good thing and Linus made important contributions!

But he didn’t create git by himself in a week like the parent comments argue.

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

#700

Post by clusmore »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #13

To all the salty people- the person cofounded GitHub. It's not the product that raised 17M, it's the person.

The issue is that the investors will want a return on that $17M at some point, so they're going to need to charge money for something eventually. If the revenue model is not obvious now, that only means they'll be pressured into something non-obvious later.
Post reply on HN