Haven't looked at the actual product, but my personal advice to this team is not to use terms like `Next-Gen` and `Modern` as their taglines. It turns of real significant buyers from consideration IMHO.
When I hear "next-gen" and "modern" I hear "we don't have a real value proposition except 'its not the incumbent thing'".
The landing page does a very poor job of explaining how this product differs from established platforms like GitLab, Gitea, or Codeberg, all of which are open source.
Also, I strongly doubt its GitHub Actions compatibility. Even an established and well-maintained project like Act has known compatibility issues, and GitHub's official images are extremely resource-intensive to build.
Landing page will mature, right now all brain power of the team went into ensuring that is has very solid github action compatibility while also not bankrupting our pockets.
On first glance, it just looks (the features) like a clone of GitHub. Why not provide us the differentiators, what problems it solves (especially for engineering teams with agentic labor) that GitHub doesn't?
> Some Trylle features use artificial intelligence and machine learning, and several of them rely on third-party AI providers (acting as our sub-processors) to operate. When you or a member of your organization invokes one of these features, the relevant context — which may include your source code, diffs, file contents, issues, pull requests, commit messages, and related repository content and metadata — may be sent to and processed by these third-party providers in order to generate a response. This processing happens at your direction: it occurs only when you or your organization triggers the feature, and it is scoped to the repositories and resources that feature is authorized to access.
> You can control whether these features are enabled through your organization and repository settings (for example, Settings → AI), and disabling a feature stops the associated processing going forward.
I don't have allergy to AI "accelerated" development. I have allergy for platforms opting me by default into something that they clearly know I won't opt-in if asked.
I get the concern, but how would you get AI features without actively sending context to 3rd parties? At least the policy is transparent: doing ai stuff will process your code.
But aside from that, Trylle will implement BYOK and even "bring your own endpoint" pretty soon, that means you'll have modern way of doing software without sacrificing your privacy rights to big labs.
Haven't looked at the actual product, but my personal advice to this team is not to use terms like `Next-Gen` and `Modern` as their taglines. It turns of real significant buyers from consideration IMHO.
When I hear "next-gen" and "modern" I hear "we don't have a real value proposition except 'its not the incumbent thing'".
"The Git Platform for Teams."
Like a hub for git?
Some might prefer a lab.
Isn’t that Git?
The landing page does a very poor job of explaining how this product differs from established platforms like GitLab, Gitea, or Codeberg, all of which are open source.
Also, I strongly doubt its GitHub Actions compatibility. Even an established and well-maintained project like Act has known compatibility issues, and GitHub's official images are extremely resource-intensive to build.
Landing page will mature, right now all brain power of the team went into ensuring that is has very solid github action compatibility while also not bankrupting our pockets.
So this is just a GitHub clone and has nothing to do with being a new DVCS as a competitor to git. I understand now.
On first glance, it just looks (the features) like a clone of GitHub. Why not provide us the differentiators, what problems it solves (especially for engineering teams with agentic labor) that GitHub doesn't?
Or tell me what it explicitly doesn't do. I like marketing that says, "We don't X"
It's very clear and not "clever"
> Some Trylle features use artificial intelligence and machine learning, and several of them rely on third-party AI providers (acting as our sub-processors) to operate. When you or a member of your organization invokes one of these features, the relevant context — which may include your source code, diffs, file contents, issues, pull requests, commit messages, and related repository content and metadata — may be sent to and processed by these third-party providers in order to generate a response. This processing happens at your direction: it occurs only when you or your organization triggers the feature, and it is scoped to the repositories and resources that feature is authorized to access.
> You can control whether these features are enabled through your organization and repository settings (for example, Settings → AI), and disabling a feature stops the associated processing going forward.
This playbook feels so familiar.
There are some free platforms for git hosting that don't use AI. Trylle is specifically about augmented software development cycle.
You can try Codeberg or Upd.dev if you have allergy for AI accelerated development.
I don't have allergy to AI "accelerated" development. I have allergy for platforms opting me by default into something that they clearly know I won't opt-in if asked.
I get the concern, but how would you get AI features without actively sending context to 3rd parties? At least the policy is transparent: doing ai stuff will process your code.
But aside from that, Trylle will implement BYOK and even "bring your own endpoint" pretty soon, that means you'll have modern way of doing software without sacrificing your privacy rights to big labs.
Sorry, but you need to have at least some info about the humans involved before I would even consider using this.
[dead]