> Put plainly, we do not believe that Git is the future of source control. Git has served developers well for many years, but it was designed around the constraints of 2005, not 2025, let alone 2035. For example, it was built for the Linux kernel: an open source project. Open Source is incredibly important to our industry, but this means it’s missing key features that are useful for organizations that aren’t sharing their code with everyone.

This is supposed to be the most critical part of the blog post and it's really anemic. It never explains what's wrong with git.

What problem are they trying to solve? This part is still not very clear to me.

Like the other comments, I'm very confused at what this is meant to do other than promote a wanna-be Git competitor and yet another hyper-specific "conference". The post doesn't really make any arguments, even in the section that's suppose to make an argument. And for some reason they're adding GraphQL into the mix, somehow?

Probably some A.I.-enabled version control system. I mean, everything has A.I. in it these days, right? Yawn!