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

701–710 of 785 posts

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

#701

Post by materielle »

otterley wrote: post #474
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…

Those were not his ideas. Before Git, the Linux kernel team was using BitKeeper for DVCS (and other DVCS implementations like Perforce existed as well). Git was created as a BitKeeper replacement after a fight erupted between Andrew Tridgell (who was accused of trying to reverse engineer BitKeeper in violation of its license) and Larry McVoy (the author of BitKeeper). https://graphite.com/blog/bitkeeper-linux-story-o…

I agree and that’s the point I was trying to make.

Linus’s contribution is a great one. He learned from prior tools and contributions, made a lot of smart technical decisions, got stuff moving with a prototype, then displayed good technical leadership by handing it off to a dedicated development team.

That’s such a good lesson for all of us devs.

So why the urge to lie and pretend he coded it in a week with no help? I know you’re not saying this, but this is the common myth.

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

#702

Post by easterncalculus »

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.

It's basically the entire context of this website.

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

#703

Post by bcrl »

MidnightRider39 wrote: post #593
trashb wrote: post #533

> The old model assumed one person, one branch, one terminal, one linear flow. Not only has the problem not been solved well for that old model, it’s now only been compounded with our new AI tools. A bit of a strange thing to say in my book. Git isn't SVN and I think these problems are already solved with git. I agree that the interface is not always very intuitive but Git has the infrastructure which is very much fo…

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

BitKeeper tried to do that. Git was built because the commercial license of BitKeeper became unworkable for the Linux kernel community.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

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

#704

Post by johnisgood »

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…

I like darcs, so I am rooting for pijul.

https://pijul.com

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

#705

Post by chipsrafferty »

_3u10 wrote: post #655
chipsrafferty wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, you might want to throw that entire repository away and restore it from a backup before the offending commit because it's so difficult to fix and guarantee that it's not hiding in there somewhere and while also not breaking something else. I'm not a git expert but I cant image that's true

It’s not you just need to force push or generate a new key…

Yeah it doesn't seem hard to rewrite the commit history

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

#706

Post by olalonde »

NateEag wrote: post #620
olalonde wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practically no one was using Git before GitHub (except Linux). Subversion was much more widespread.

Subversion was (and is) an admirable project, and filled a void by being much better than CVS. When I discovered git, I couldn't go back to svn - git fit my mind _so_ much better. It might not have seen the meteoric rise without GitHub, but just like it's weird to find servers running an OS other than Linux these years, I suspect there would have been a steady growth that eventually made it dominant. I suspect it wil…

Sure, my point was simply that many people discovered Git because of GitHub.

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

#707

Post by fragmede »

conartist6 wrote: post #676
buffington wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not changing it to be more corpo-propriate now. Look, I'm not wanting to be rude here, and this is obviously all hypothetical since you're likely not actively pitching to investors, but if you were, being stubborn in this way would be a deal breaker for me as an investor. I see all the reasons you have for keeping it, and they're reasonable, but the mere idea that that's a hill you're willing to die on is a red…

I kind of am actively pitching to investors at this point. I wouldn't say the username is a hill to die on. I can't hide that this is the online identity I used while working on this project. Trying to hide it would just feel sketchier, no? And yeah, for 17 mil I'm willing to talk about most anything, but I still see a conversation with investors like going on a date. The red flags can go both ways...

Bro.

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

#708

Post by danny_codes »

da_chicken wrote: post #644
trashb wrote: post #533

> The old model assumed one person, one branch, one terminal, one linear flow. Not only has the problem not been solved well for that old model, it’s now only been compounded with our new AI tools. A bit of a strange thing to say in my book. Git isn't SVN and I think these problems are already solved with git. I agree that the interface is not always very intuitive but Git has the infrastructure which is very much fo…

> 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…

git rebase -i git push origin mainline -f

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

#709

Post by conartist6 »

fragmede wrote: post #707
conartist6 wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of am actively pitching to investors at this point. I wouldn't say the username is a hill to die on. I can't hide that this is the online identity I used while working on this project. Trying to hide it would just feel sketchier, no? And yeah, for 17 mil I'm willing to talk about most anything, but I still see a conversation with investors like going on a date. The red flags can go both ways...

Bro.

I can be a real bastard can't I! My fear is just gone though. I've worked too hard to be afraid.

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

#710

Post by conartist6 »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #613
conartist6 wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been my username for 20 years and I'm not changing it to be more corpo-propriate now. I think it makes more sense if you know that my name is Conrad. It's pretty easy to find out who I am in the real world too. For one thing I'm a private pilot and for 10 years I had an airplane personally registered to me, making my name and address a matter of (open) public record.

I agree completely. However, this mentality is why honest people like you get pushed to the sidelines, and manufactured, perfect imaged, 1000+ referenced in LinkedIn types are more successful in getting VC funding. If this is seriously your goal, you are going to have to play the game. Remember, even when perfectly playing the game in your position you will likely fail. If this is what you want to do, do you want to…

I'm mystified by this argument, that the best way for me to play the game is how others are playing it. Investors don't all make the same bet, nor do they want to, so I'm going to do what only I can do.

Sure some people will rule me out for superficial reasons, but I also get some benefit in screening out people who want to kick the tires but aren't interested in building a real relationship, just like companies do when they screen job candidates.

Post reply on HN