7 ms·

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 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 that can build the universal infrastructure for AI and agentic coding.

mohsen1 6mo ago
I watched video to see where my prompts etc are stored in a way that makes sense. But no, this is just a nicer git. We need a solution to all these 10k loc PRs.
- dirkc 6mo ago
  Another comment [1] has a solution - a new tool called pit, it just throws the whole 10k loc PR in a pit and forgets about it :p [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47713650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47713650
- oofbey 6mo ago
  Agreed. Although I’m not sure what’s nicer about it. It’s in color. But I failed to understand why I’d want any of those features.
- Sharlin 6mo ago
  > We need a solution to all these 10k loc PRs. One of the most idiotic things about the whole LLM craze is the idea that we have to change all of our infrastructure to accommodate LLMs instead of figuring out how to train LLMs to make better commits.
jgauth 6mo ago
Makes sense to me. The new coding agents are drastically changing software development, and I think there's a lot of space for innovation in how version control tooling works in this new world.
- progx 6mo ago
  Why should ai need this? A linear backlog is enough, a cache, for everything else they can create it new in a short time.
  - jcfrei 6mo ago
    Another commenter explained it: It's about working on multiple branches in parallel. You can only check out one branch at a time currently in git - but with "but" you have all the changes just in memory so different agents can work on different branches at the same time.
    - leadingthenet 6mo ago
      git-worktree has been a thing for a decade+ and AI agents seem to be using them just fine in my experience. This is a solved problem.
    - dbbk 6mo ago
      That's not even true
      - maerF0x0 6mo ago
        Why not? Are you considering git worktrees?
        dbbk 6mo ago
        Exactly, worktrees solve this problem, every "agentic IDE" uses them
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - jlokier 6mo ago
      Working on multiple branches in parallel is literally what Git was created for, and how it's been used since the very first version 20 years ago. Other commenters mentioned worktrees, which let you check out different branches at the same time from a single local repo. That's convenient, but not required. Git always supported "fast cloning" local repos as well. You just "git clone" from one directory to another. Then they are independent and you're free to decide what to merge back. These days, agents can also fork their containers or VMs as often as required too, with copy-on-write for speed. So that's four ways to work on multiple branches in parallel using Git that we already use.
IshKebab 6mo ago
They actually started before the LLM craze. The original pitch was just better Git.
conartist6 6mo ago
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 a famous person's?
- spaghetdefects 6mo ago
  Sadly you can't, and this is a huge flaw in the venture capital model. They invest in people that they think other vcs will invest in. More often than not who your parents are matters more than anything (unless you've had a huge exit like the OP). They'll also throw money at you if you come from a rich family, not because they think you'll succeed, but because they want your family's money as LPs in their funds.
  - conartist6 6mo ago
    Well regardless of whether it's hard or impossible, I'm doing this. I'm going. The problem they have is that they're betting git is a solid foundation to build on. A tectonic change like git actually being replaced wouldn't just eliminate their moat, it would leave them trapped on the wrong side of it. I can't win their game, so I'm changing the game.
- basket_horse 6mo ago
  No offense, but why should I believe you? The guy is famous because he has a track record of success doing similar projects. Of course that doesn’t guarantee success, but I’d wager it makes it statistically more likely than a random person. Starting a successful company is not all about good engineering. Have you built a prototype and tried to pitch any VCs? Or are you just asking rhetorical questions?
  - conartist6 6mo ago
    I built a prototype, and then I rebuilt and rebuilt it and rebuilt it, and somewhere in there my understanding of how to think about what I was building completely flipped on its head. Then I rebuilt the version flipped on its head another several times until I finally understood it. You can see that on my Github, it's all public: https://github.com/conartist6 https://github.com/conartist6 (public devlog on Discord). It's a pretty serious claim to know what comes after git, and I have a whole array of criteria I evaluate claimants on: - Will their version control solution fall apart if there are not enough line breaks in the code? - Can they solve the rename-function/add-usage conflict? Git normally can't surface this conflict at all. - Can the system maintain authorship attribution at a fine-grained level (per-second resolution) - Will their solution's performance break down if there is too much code in one file? - How will the solution handle change notifications? Is the filesystem watcher the de-facto coordinator? This GitButler thing fails all my tests for a thing that's serious about replacing git; it just seems like they haven't thought about any of that stuff, well, at all.
Nifty3929 6mo ago
You can stop at bullet #1 and that's plenty to raise $17m on right there. No questions asked.
jmyeet 6mo ago
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's highly unlike anyone will ever make a commercial general purpose database again. There are always niche cases. Same with operating systems. Yes we have MacOS and Windows but what are the odds we get another commercial mass OS? I'd say almost zero. It's the same for source control. Git "won". There are a handful of others (eg Mercurial). But gone are the days of, say, Visual Source Safe. But when people talk about "what comes after Git" they really mean (IMHO) "what comes after Github", which is a completely different conversation. Because Github absolutely can be superseded by something better. Will it though? I don't know. It has an incredible amount of inertia. As for AI and anything related to source control, I'd have a hard time betting against Anthropic. But remember the exit could be an HN post of "We're joining Anthropic!". Side note: I really hate this "we're joining X" framing. No, you took the bag. That's fine. But let's be honest. For people with a proven track record, AI is a gold rush of acquisition more than creating a sustainable business, let alone an IPO. I think that's what this bet is.
- trollied 6mo ago
  GitHub has already been bettered - gitlab is much better, in my opinion.
  - mastermage 6mo ago
    And Self hostable.
PaulDavisThe1st 6mo ago
put differently: there's already a lot of money moving from A to B as people use AI & agentic coding. Find a way to get yourself in the middle of that cash flow and suck out a few percentage points of it .. profit!
1718627440 6mo ago
I use Git as a deduplication compressing backup tool. Git is fine and useful for a multitude of uses both manual and automated. Maybe the UI aka. porcelain is a bit clunky, but Git was explicitly intended to be separated into porcelain and plumbing, so that you can use the plumbing to make your own porcelain. From git(1): LOW-LEVEL COMMANDS (PLUMBING) Although Git includes its own porcelain layer, its low-level commands are sufficient to support development of alternative porcelains. Developers of such porcelains might start by reading about git-update-index(1) and git-read-tree(1). The interface (input, output, set of options and the semantics) to these low-level commands are meant to be a lot more stable than Porcelain level commands, because these commands are primarily for scripted use. The interface to Porcelain commands on the other hand are subject to change in order to improve the end user experience. The following description divides the low-level commands into commands that manipulate objects (in the repository, index, and working tree), commands that interrogate and compare objects, and commands that move objects and references between repositories.
upcoming-sesame 6mo ago
wasn't there another GitHub cofounder that recently also had some similar product launched?

mohsen1 6mo ago

I watched video to see where my prompts etc are stored in a way that makes sense. But no, this is just a nicer git. We need a solution to all these 10k loc PRs.

dirkc 6mo ago
Another comment [1] has a solution - a new tool called pit, it just throws the whole 10k loc PR in a pit and forgets about it :p [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47713650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47713650
oofbey 6mo ago
Agreed. Although I’m not sure what’s nicer about it. It’s in color. But I failed to understand why I’d want any of those features.
Sharlin 6mo ago
> We need a solution to all these 10k loc PRs. One of the most idiotic things about the whole LLM craze is the idea that we have to change all of our infrastructure to accommodate LLMs instead of figuring out how to train LLMs to make better commits.

jgauth 6mo ago

Makes sense to me. The new coding agents are drastically changing software development, and I think there's a lot of space for innovation in how version control tooling works in this new world.

progx 6mo ago
Why should ai need this? A linear backlog is enough, a cache, for everything else they can create it new in a short time.
- jcfrei 6mo ago
  Another commenter explained it: It's about working on multiple branches in parallel. You can only check out one branch at a time currently in git - but with "but" you have all the changes just in memory so different agents can work on different branches at the same time.
  - leadingthenet 6mo ago
    git-worktree has been a thing for a decade+ and AI agents seem to be using them just fine in my experience. This is a solved problem.
  - dbbk 6mo ago
    That's not even true
    - maerF0x0 6mo ago
      Why not? Are you considering git worktrees?
      - dbbk 6mo ago
        Exactly, worktrees solve this problem, every "agentic IDE" uses them
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - jlokier 6mo ago
    Working on multiple branches in parallel is literally what Git was created for, and how it's been used since the very first version 20 years ago. Other commenters mentioned worktrees, which let you check out different branches at the same time from a single local repo. That's convenient, but not required. Git always supported "fast cloning" local repos as well. You just "git clone" from one directory to another. Then they are independent and you're free to decide what to merge back. These days, agents can also fork their containers or VMs as often as required too, with copy-on-write for speed. So that's four ways to work on multiple branches in parallel using Git that we already use.

IshKebab 6mo ago

They actually started before the LLM craze. The original pitch was just better Git.

conartist6 6mo ago

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 a famous person's?

spaghetdefects 6mo ago
Sadly you can't, and this is a huge flaw in the venture capital model. They invest in people that they think other vcs will invest in. More often than not who your parents are matters more than anything (unless you've had a huge exit like the OP). They'll also throw money at you if you come from a rich family, not because they think you'll succeed, but because they want your family's money as LPs in their funds.
- conartist6 6mo ago
  Well regardless of whether it's hard or impossible, I'm doing this. I'm going. The problem they have is that they're betting git is a solid foundation to build on. A tectonic change like git actually being replaced wouldn't just eliminate their moat, it would leave them trapped on the wrong side of it. I can't win their game, so I'm changing the game.
basket_horse 6mo ago
No offense, but why should I believe you? The guy is famous because he has a track record of success doing similar projects. Of course that doesn’t guarantee success, but I’d wager it makes it statistically more likely than a random person. Starting a successful company is not all about good engineering. Have you built a prototype and tried to pitch any VCs? Or are you just asking rhetorical questions?
- conartist6 6mo ago
  I built a prototype, and then I rebuilt and rebuilt it and rebuilt it, and somewhere in there my understanding of how to think about what I was building completely flipped on its head. Then I rebuilt the version flipped on its head another several times until I finally understood it. You can see that on my Github, it's all public: https://github.com/conartist6 https://github.com/conartist6 (public devlog on Discord). It's a pretty serious claim to know what comes after git, and I have a whole array of criteria I evaluate claimants on: - Will their version control solution fall apart if there are not enough line breaks in the code? - Can they solve the rename-function/add-usage conflict? Git normally can't surface this conflict at all. - Can the system maintain authorship attribution at a fine-grained level (per-second resolution) - Will their solution's performance break down if there is too much code in one file? - How will the solution handle change notifications? Is the filesystem watcher the de-facto coordinator? This GitButler thing fails all my tests for a thing that's serious about replacing git; it just seems like they haven't thought about any of that stuff, well, at all.

Nifty3929 6mo ago

You can stop at bullet #1 and that's plenty to raise $17m on right there. No questions asked.

jmyeet 6mo ago

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's highly unlike anyone will ever make a commercial general purpose database again. There are always niche cases. Same with operating systems. Yes we have MacOS and Windows but what are the odds we get another commercial mass OS? I'd say almost zero. It's the same for source control. Git "won". There are a handful of others (eg Mercurial). But gone are the days of, say, Visual Source Safe. But when people talk about "what comes after Git" they really mean (IMHO) "what comes after Github", which is a completely different conversation. Because Github absolutely can be superseded by something better. Will it though? I don't know. It has an incredible amount of inertia. As for AI and anything related to source control, I'd have a hard time betting against Anthropic. But remember the exit could be an HN post of "We're joining Anthropic!". Side note: I really hate this "we're joining X" framing. No, you took the bag. That's fine. But let's be honest. For people with a proven track record, AI is a gold rush of acquisition more than creating a sustainable business, let alone an IPO. I think that's what this bet is.

trollied 6mo ago
GitHub has already been bettered - gitlab is much better, in my opinion.
- mastermage 6mo ago
  And Self hostable.

PaulDavisThe1st 6mo ago

put differently: there's already a lot of money moving from A to B as people use AI & agentic coding. Find a way to get yourself in the middle of that cash flow and suck out a few percentage points of it .. profit!

1718627440 6mo ago

I use Git as a deduplication compressing backup tool. Git is fine and useful for a multitude of uses both manual and automated. Maybe the UI aka. porcelain is a bit clunky, but Git was explicitly intended to be separated into porcelain and plumbing, so that you can use the plumbing to make your own porcelain. From git(1): LOW-LEVEL COMMANDS (PLUMBING) Although Git includes its own porcelain layer, its low-level commands are sufficient to support development of alternative porcelains. Developers of such porcelains might start by reading about git-update-index(1) and git-read-tree(1). The interface (input, output, set of options and the semantics) to these low-level commands are meant to be a lot more stable than Porcelain level commands, because these commands are primarily for scripted use. The interface to Porcelain commands on the other hand are subject to change in order to improve the end user experience. The following description divides the low-level commands into commands that manipulate objects (in the repository, index, and working tree), commands that interrogate and compare objects, and commands that move objects and references between repositories.

upcoming-sesame 6mo ago

wasn't there another GitHub cofounder that recently also had some similar product launched?