We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git • Hacker News Board

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

#721

Post by mexicocitinluez » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 12:55 PM UTC

ruszki wrote: post #669

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…

> Did you ever accidentally commit something that contains a secret that can't be in the repository? What do I need to do on top of a git force push, and some well documented remote reflog/gc cleanup, which I can’t find with a single search/LLM request? Are we there, where we don’t have enough developers who can do this without feeling it as a burden? Or are we there where this level of basic logic is not needed to i…

> What do I need to do on top of a git force push, and some well documented remote reflog/gc cleanup, which I can’t find with a single search/LLM request?

This is a self-defeating argument. You're essentially saying we shouldn't improve something because it can be done with a handful of commands (you already know btw) and prompting an LLM.

> Are we there, where we don’t have enough developers who can do this without feeling it as a burden?

The no true scotman.

> Or are we there where this level of basic logic is not needed to implement anything production ready?

Not sure how this fits in with the rest honestly.

It was never about whether it was possible. It was about how it's being done. Juniors (and even seniors) accidentally check in secrets. Arguing that there shouldn't be a simpler way to remove an enormous security flaw feels a bit disingenuous.

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

#722

Post by mastermage » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 1:05 PM UTC

trollied wrote: post #581

jmyeet wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put another way: the idea didn't raise $17M, the team did. That's usually the case but you can fully expect a pivot in their future. Once open source spreads into an area, it tends to kill (commodify) commercial software in that space. For example, with databases, MySQL and Postgres "won". Yes, there are commercial databases like SQL Server and Oracle but they largely exist through regulatory capture and inertia. It'…

GitHub has already been bettered - gitlab is much better, in my opinion.

And Self hostable.

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

#723

Post by conartist6 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 1:10 PM UTC

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #712

conartist6 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I know that they didn't. Even though they didn't invent it and don't own it, it's still the cornerstone of the wall that has become the Github empire. The specific problem is that all the competitors to Github have to use git, and that limits how different they can really be than Github and thus how aggressively they can compete to win users

> The specific problem Problem for whom? Users who are happy using git? Or conartist86 who is thinking about how to get money? > the competitors to Github have to use git Why? Syncing between various VCSes has been a thing since forever. If you can't handle a compatibility layer to support git+new-better-thing, you don't have the technical chops to build new-better-thing in the first place.

I do want forwards compatibility, I don't want backwards compatibility.

The way I think about it, if I make a backwards compatible product I might end up with users who never really wanted any change at all, and those people would be almost impossible to make happy. Those are the "faster horse" users. What I need is to find the people whose life would be changed by a car!

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

#724

Post by mastermage » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 1:13 PM UTC

I think Git specifically with jj is still a massively good tool. There are some interesting alternatives happening like Fossil with its auto commit which for single devs is probably realy nice. Or Pijul but thats very early stage.

Alternatively I had the idea of something that automatically syncs your current working progress similar to how Word and Excel autosave work. With a main "branch" thats never developed in and will only be merged into from synced streams. But that idea is nowhere near cooked out yet.

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

#725

Post by conartist6 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 1:16 PM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #713

conartist6 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I know that they didn't. Even though they didn't invent it and don't own it, it's still the cornerstone of the wall that has become the Github empire. The specific problem is that all the competitors to Github have to use git, and that limits how different they can really be than Github and thus how aggressively they can compete to win users

That's like saying the problem for competitors to Uber is that they still have to take customers between the same A and B.

Maybe, but the way they captured the market was by offering a differentiated product. We already had cabs and buses, yes, but Uber wasn't just summoning cabs and selling bus tickets, where they? The core experience was still A to B but Uber discovered that there was a lot more consumer innovation possible within the confines of the A to B problem...

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

#726

Post by NewsaHackO » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 1:32 PM UTC

conartist6 wrote: post #710

NewsaHackO wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Your analogy is telling. Would you consider your position closer to a company hiring for a job, or a homeless person asking someone for money?

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

#727

Post by love2read » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:13 PM UTC

brockers wrote: post #576

Honest question. I love some of the additional capabilities and specifically the dependency commits, virtual branches, and JSON output... BUT why not just work with the git community to add this functionality? It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that needs to "replace" git, as opposed to "improve" git?

There’s no business in working with an existing community to add functionality. And hence, where do you think the full time developers working on the project would get their livelihood?

Yes you could add all these things to git, but no, nobody will give you $17M to do it, nor will you find competent engineers who are willing to work for whatever funding they can find for “improving git”, which in all reality will probably round down to 0 in comparison to several software engineer’s salaries.

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

#728

Post by siva7 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:15 PM UTC

bloppe wrote: post #697

mervz wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ok, that explains everything. Who you know in the Valley is everything. Literally.

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

#729

Post by love2read » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

operatingthetan wrote: post #146

rsanheim wrote: post #95

Wow. So much hate in the comments here. Of all the funding / equity events lately, I wonder how this one gets so much doubt and distrust from the start. If this isn’t something to at least root for, in the sense of a small team, novel product, serving a real need, then I dunno what is. You can use jj or tangled and still appreciate improvements to git and vcs on the web in general. Competition amongst many players is…

Why do they need $17m to build this? Vibe code it in a couple weeks, ship it.

Nothing in this project looks vibecoded. I compel you to try vibecoding this in a couple weeks if you think it’s possible, and then after that to build a business out of it. If the only thing stopping you is the code, you should give it a try.

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

#730

Post by love2read » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 2:19 PM UTC

hotgeart wrote: post #325

Git just works. If you're not really familiar with it, you can use a free UI. If you don't know anything about it, AI like ChatGPT or Claude can help you commit or even teach you Git. If you raise money for this project, you probably intend to make money in the near future. I don’t think anyone here wants ads on Git or to argue with a manager to get the premium version of GitButler just because you reached the commit…

Git does not ‘just work’, hence the creations of jj and every git wrapper cli/ui in the past N years with serious traction (>100).