[inesranzo]

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.

[d--b]

Ah, this is fun.

The article is about how people shouldn’t build CMSs because they’re building things that are too simple, missing tons features and not realizing the scope of what they get into.

But one thing that CMSs may want to have is “proper version control”. So what do they do? They are faced with 2 options: using a complete version control system like git, which allows them to do branches and merges and PR reviews and so on. Or they build something simpler internally, with only draft/publish, like they usually do.

But what if 2 marketers are making changes to the same file at the same time? one because the name of a product changed, and one because there is a new christmas sale. Does the version system handle merging? Maybe… maybe not…

The point I am making is that we always make the tradeoffs of buying off-the-shelf complex stuff vs internally built, incomplete buggy but tailor-made solutions.

And CMS is very much a space where customability matters.

BTW, Github Pages is a git-backed “CMS” used by millions of people. It works fine.

[gregates]

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".)

[arionmiles]

Cursor replaced their CMS because Cursor is a 50-people team shipping content to one website. Cursor also has a "Designers are Developers" scenario so their entire team is well versed with git.

This setup is minimal and works for them for the moment, but the author argues (and reasonably well enough, IMO) that this won't scale when they have dedicated marketing and comms teams.

It's not at all about Cursor using the chance to replace a department with AI, the department doesn't exist in their case.

[eloisant]

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.

[PunchyHamster]

Git can make sense, but you still need to wrap it for non-technical people. No matter how easy markup is, some people still will refuse to learn it and ask for WYSIWYG tools

[sublinear]

I'm gonna be honest here. I don't know what a non-technical person is anymore. The only people I can truly label that way are a subset of the people now near or at retirement age.

It's almost 2026. There are more people who know how to code than ever before. This stuff is taught in every school now. Everyone has access to AI to help them if they get stuck. If someone under 50 is unwilling to work I am unwilling to employ.

[ozim]

I do believe that using Git GUI for those people should be perfectly fine and it would be good for business people in general to adopt Git for a lot of documents or content.

But forcing people to use the tool is not the way to go as ROI depends a lot on context of the company and lots of time just a CMS would be better bang for the buck.