Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jacobegold's commentslogin

yep we do! another big use case for it seems to be big enterprises for their own internal tools - we see this a lot with our largest customers.

but the OSS use case described here is a pretty different case, what OP suggested may still be useful there


Yep. We see this future and are working on exactly what you're talking about (Graphite)


You just completely contradicted yourself then.


Not sure how? Meant this:

> The agentic coding tools and review tools I want my team (and myself) to have access to are ones that ones that force an explicit knowledge interview & acquisition process during authoring and involve the engineer more intricately in the whole flow.


> we have chosen to build for what we consider to be an inevitable future - one where code validation requires vanishingly little human participation.


As a Graphite employee, would love this tbh - we love Blacksmith!


Maintained, improved, and integrated.

With more resources than ever. We're building whole platform. That's a lot more than just AI.


Correct (Graphite eng here for context) - we've thought about extending our CLI to allow it to sync jj with GH pull requests to do exactly this. Essentially - similar workflow but use `jj` as the frontend instead of `gt`


Please do this! As a Graphite user, I'd love to be able to switch to jj for my local development, but the disconnect between it and Graphite keeps me away.


we are a 70 person team, bringing in significant revenue through our product, have widespread usage at massive companies like shopify robinhood etc, this is a MUCH MUCH MUCH different story than supermaven (which I used myself and was sad to see go) which was a tiny team with a super-early product when they got acquired.

everyone is staying on to keep making the graphite product great. we're all excited to have these resources behind us!


Not your fault at all, but there is a ton of precedent to be skeptical that these pronouncements end up being accurate.


The biggest challenge is that an acquisition like this makes relying on the acquired product a giant risk for us, so our general policy is to stop relying on something once it gets acquired and try to migrate to something else, because it's just way too disruptive to find out a year later it's getting sunsetted and then have a shorter timeline to migrate off.

It's happened so many times that it's just part of how we do business, unfortunately.


I've seen big companies cleave off tens of millions of profitable products on a whim pretty often....


Obviously what you need to say but the reality is that you’re not in control anymore. That’s what an acquisition is.

If Cursor wants to re-allocate resources or merge Graphite into to editor or stagnate development and use it as a marketing/lead gen channel, it will for the business.

Anything said at time of acquisition isn’t trustworthy. Not because people are lying at the time (I don’t think you are!) but because these deals give up leverage and control explicitly. If they only wanted tighter integration, they could fund that via equity investment or staffing engineers (+/- paying Graphite to do the same.) Companies acquire for a reason and it isn’t to let the team + product stay independent


stacked prs will only get better from here :) we have an incredible amount of resources to keep improving that part of our product.


we have a big effort in the works to improve web perf! where specifically are you seeing slowness in the app — what flows, what pages, etc?


Super glad to hear!

The worst offender is a slack notification[0] deep link into a PR I need to review.

It loads in stages, and the time from click to first diff is often so frustratingly long that I end up copying the PR ID and going to GitHub instead.

Sometimes I give up while Graphite is still loading and use the shortcut C-G to go to GitHub.

The second issue might be the landing page. I love what it shows compared to GitHub, but it's often slow to display loading blocks for things that haven’t even changed. Reloads are usually fast after that — until sometime later, maybe a day, when it slows down again.

I don't know why it feels worse than Linear, even though there are clearly many similarities in how it's supposed to load.

The guest instance isn’t so much about loading speed, but usage speed.

When I submit a stack of PRs, I get a nice carousel to fill in PR titles/descriptions and choose where to publish each PR. What’s missing for me there is access to files and diffs, so I can re-review before publishing. I often end up closing it and going back to the PR list instead.

[0] Thank God for those! You've made them much more useful than GitHub's. Also, the landing page is far more helpful in terms of what’s displayed.


It's so cool that Git is considering first class change IDs!! That's huge! This sounds similar to what we had at Facebook to track revisions in Phabricator diffs. Curious if anyone knows the best place to read about this?


The fundamental problem is that git doesn't track branches in any sane way. Maybe it would be better to fix that? Fossil remembers what branch a commit was committed on, so the task branch itself is a change ID. That might be tricky to solve while also allowing git commands to mess with history of course. Fossil doesn't have that problem.


hell yeah


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: