Earlier quoted context omitted.
git isn’t Saas. git ≠ GitHub
The article is about a $17M funding round for GitButler. Which I assume has some revenue plan that you might qualify as SAAS. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Their product is a CLI.
We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
671–680 of 785 posts
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#672A 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…
The trick to raising money is being able to convince an investor you are the person to build that platform, not being able to build the platform.
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 adva…
I've considered trying to get Linus to be the knowledgeable person given his history. I haven't actually reached out though. I badly want someone to take that deep dive given the work I've put in to be ready for it
Now you understand why people have non technical co founders!
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ask…
> where Git's *default* merge algorithm gives you horrible diffs You are saying it yourself.
Saying what? Defaults matter. The fact that other people are doing their best to improve Git's mediocre defaults doesn't excuse it.
I doubt you would defend any of Windows' poor defaults because there are tools to fix them.
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#675Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's really burying the lede to call Linus Torvalds "one guy with a chip on his shoulder". "Why fund $17M towards development of an operating system, when Linux was made by one guy with a chip on his shoulder?"
While he's technically excellent (or so it seems on the outside) he's still just, like, a guy
Zaphod iz just zis guy, you know
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#676Earlier 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'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...
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm one of the git users who would sweat. Can you explain a bit (out link relevant docs) how I might split a commit up, and move it?
Here's two "raw" methods: 1. Use "git rebase -i commitid^" (or branch point, tag etc), ideally with editor set to Magit, set that commit to "edit" (single key 'e' in Magit) and let the rebase continue, do "git reset -p HEAD^" and select the hunks you want to remove from the first commit, "git commit --amend", then "git commit -a" (add -c if useful, e.g. to copy author and date from the previous one). or to keep the a…
Yeah, I mostly do it like that. I don't use Magit (yet? Haven't got the motivation to learn or find a good tutorial for Emacs.), but instead use the cursor to select the lines to stage or unstage with the cursor/mouse in my Git GUI. Also depending on what I want the commits to look like, I duplicate the pick commit line first (and potentially move it).
On an unrelated note, I use @~ instead of @^, because I think of moving up down the ancestry, not sideways, e.g. I'm more likely to want to change it to an older/newer commit, than I am to want to change the second parent instead. I don't get why most tutorials show it with @^, because you do focus on the commit being an ancestor, not precisely being the direct first parent, although of course for the first-level first parent, it amounts to the same.
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#678A 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…
wasn't there another GitHub cofounder that recently also had some similar product launched?
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd have thought the same about all the big tech companies when they were startups. Yet now they're making piles of money and contributing to America's overall economic success.
Back then the landscape was a different one. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon all were founded years or decades before Git was created and money had a different value back then. (Inflation) For every unicorn there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands dead horses...
There are dead horses and unicorns, which turns out to be better than just living horses and no unicorns like Ukraine and Europe are more like.
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#680I 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…
Every success story and happy conversion to jj is evidence that hg should have won the DVCS war, but more importantly, that VCSes and their inherent merits and tradeoffs were always secondary to the social networks underpinning them. GitHub as a defacto monopoly really killed innovation in the VCS space, but also shifted the focus and attention elsewhere. That's why I don't think there'll be so much of a "post-git" w…
LOL. In 2007, I did a side-by-side comparison of SVN, Mercurial and git with my codebase at work (~700k LOC). I know hg got faster eventually, but I still can't believe people say "hg should have won the DVCS war" with a straight face. It was orders of magnitude slower in my tests. Like, 20 minutes to commit large xml files (yeah, I know, but that's where we were). Not just a few ms slower, unbearably slow for several things.
I liked its features better, but chose git, and that was the correct decision.