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

751–760 of 785 posts

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

#751

Post by prepend »

Meleagris wrote: post #638
prepend wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not use git branches? Your use case was why git was made.

I do use git branches, but they solve isolation, which isn't my pain point with git. When I'm using agents to code, I don't want to have to stop what I'm doing and commit known-good state to the repo every few minutes. jj just snapshots everything automatically, so I know I've captured that state, and I can look back and curate it all after the fact. It's like the shift from manually saving Word documents to autosave…

Why not just ask your agent to check in before every change? And then squish before you push or share. Works great for me and easier than convincing coworker to switch off git.

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

#752

Post by bmitc »

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.

> Under the hood git does everything you need

No it doesn't. Git is buggy. It also doesn't work for anything that's not a text file. It is unbelievably slow.

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

#753

Post by jitl »

jakeydus wrote: post #594
jitl wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the cli is open sources and ends up finished i don't see what the problem is to let a vc fund them building it

VCs are not particularly well known for their commitment to building products that they can't make money off of. They'll promise you the OSS world and then as soon as they can they'll pull the rug out from under you.

idk i just see this as someone giving me a free car in 2026 and being afraid they’re not gonna give me another free car in 2027

i’m happy to change the oil on the 2026 one for a few more years

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

#754

Post by fsckboy »

bcrl wrote: post #703
MidnightRider39 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

>Git was built because the commercial license of BitKeeper became unworkable for the Linux kernel community.

BitKeeper was free to linux kernel developers with a "but no reverse engineering" clause, but Tridgell went exploring of his own volition because he wanted to and kinda sorta violated that, so the license was cancelled by BitKeeper.

I'm not taking sides or upset about any part of this, I just wouldn't call that "becoming unworkable for the linux kernel community"; that would be like "the fence around your yard became unworkable for me in my desire to trespass on your property so I climbed over it"

what Tridgell discovered was pretty dumb and could be considered a distinct lack of a fence, but he connected to a socket and typed "help" and it dutifully printed out a bunch of undocumented useful commands.

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

#755

Post by 000ooo000 »

Cpoll wrote: post #735
000ooo000 wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skill issue. It's the most popular VCS in the world by a huge margin, millions of devs use it every day just fine, countless forges have been built around it, and there's only one semi-compelling alternative frontend (jj). If you honestly find Git challenging, how are you coping with software engineering? Git is the easy part.

Millions of dev use it in the most rudimentary way, occasionally lose their stash, rm their local repo and start over, ask the office expert for help every time they need to figure out where-the-foxtrot that commit came from, don't even attempt to use reflog or bisect or interactive staging, etc.

[flagged]

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

#756

Post by mannanj »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #156
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 was doing something with jj snapshots with AI now that you have mentioned. I will admit, I didn't know jj but I wanted snapshots so I used it, so then when AI made some changes and kept on going and I wanted to go back to a particular change and I used ai to do that. It was actually really frustrating. To the point that I think I accidentally lost one of the good files within the project and I had to settle on good…

you'r doing great. we all learn these things. AI assisted development makes it really easy to redevelop, especially since it sounds like you were vibe coding it out.

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

#757

Post by dh2022 »

chipsrafferty wrote: post #649
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…

> 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

Of course is not true - look into git filter branch. I had to use it once when a developer checked in a whole bunch of binaries and created a PR which ended being merged. I had to rewrite the history and delete the files from history - just deleting the files would not suffice because the file were in git history and we’re taking too m&ch space.

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

#759

Post by admiralrohan »

farouqjalabi wrote: post #176
admiralrohan wrote: post #170

They need to have a dedicated page explaining me why should I change my current workflow. Else I don't get the point.

https://docs.gitbutler.com/why-gitbutler

Thanks for sharing. Parallel git branching seems to be a useful feature for me, given AI agents can be used work on multiple features at same time.
Post reply on HN