←back to thread

140 points handfuloflight | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
inesranzo ◴[] No.46261415[source]
Why do you need to use Git as a CMS?

That seems backwards and hellish when you want to grow your content and marketing team as they have no clue on how to use this arcane tool.

Now the engineers would need to be bothered by the marketing department time and time again to add blog posts, wasting engineering time.

This is the reason why CMS's like Sanity, Wordpress, Directus exist.

using Git as a CMS doesn't make sense at scale.

replies(4): >>46261526 #>>46261533 #>>46261582 #>>46262361 #
gregates ◴[] No.46261582[source]
It seems like the argument is roughly: we used to use CMS because we had comms & marketing people who don't know git. But we plan to replace them all with ChatGPT or Claude, which does. So now we don't need CMS.

(I didn't click through to the original post because it seems like another boring "will AI replace humans?" debate, but that's the sense I got from the repeated mention of "agents".)

replies(2): >>46261706 #>>46262804 #
eloisant ◴[] No.46262804[source]
I don't think that's the argument. The argument is that comms and marketing people don't know git, but now that they can use AI they will be able to use tools they couldn't use before.

Basically, if they ask for a change, can preview it, ask for follow ups if it's not what they wanted, then validate it when it's good, then they don't need a GUI.

replies(1): >>46271507 #
1. fragmede ◴[] No.46271507[source]
yeah, but the scale at where it doesn't work is that the change is to propagate everywhere and git and grep are not the right tools for that.