On one hand that’s true. On the other, the “one guy” there is, like, the guy who does impressive projects “just as a hobby.”

Literally true if it's that one guy you're talking about.

Also, you should hear Linus talk about building git himself, what he built wasn't what you know as git today. It didn't even have the commands like git pull, git commit etc until he handed development over.

Uhh, to be fair, if the goal was only to recreate git from 2005, it probably wouldn't cost $17M. I'd hazard a guess that they're recreating modern git and the emergent stuff like issues, PRs, projects, etc. I've also heard that the core devs for git are essentially paid a salary to maintain git.

I'd be 1,000x more interested in a project with the official git maintainers' buy-in to leverage the alleged power of LLM development to bring all git's features into libgit2 (or whatever, but that's a starting point) and switch git itself over to using that as its backend.

I've twice in my career found reasons that git being (officially; I have no interest in dealing with another implementation with its own missing features and distinct bugs) a library instead of a messy ball of scripts and disparate binaries, would have saved me tons and tons of time. You can look at the stories of how Github was designed and built, or look at the architectures of other similar software, and see folks struggling with the same issue. You'll run into frustration on this front pretty much instantly if you try to build tooling around Git, which turns out to be such a useful thing to do that I've ended up doing it twice in ~15 years without particularly looking for reasons to.

(While we're at it, how about some kind of an officially-blessed lib-rsync with a really pleasant API?)

I'm not sure if I should take these comments seriously or as a joke...