91–100 of 117 posts
What’s your strategy around oss? Why wouldn’t I just clone and use your repo if it can talk directly to GPT4/Claude?
And, if I go through you, does Sweep retain my code in a DB or logs?
Looks cool! I haven’t used it yet but this could be really helpful. What’s your strategy around oss? Why wouldn’t I just clone and use your repo if it can talk directly to GPT4/Claude? And, if I go through you, does Sweep retain my code in a DB or logs?
We have had users in our discord set it up themselves, so it's possible. If you go through us we retain your repo in a hashed redis cache (no plaintext code stored) and store some (~50 line) snippets in our logs for debugging. We don't train on any of your code. You can find our privacy policy here: https://docs.sweep.dev/privacy
Great job.
Your demo video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVna_ow8vo is ridiculously compelling. You need to make a better version of the video, and maybe a few more of them.
The code produced in the "getInitials" function handles absolutely no corner cases whatsoever. It also didn't add any tests to the PR. All this does is making sure your website will crap all over itself 2 weeks into using this tool (death by a thousand cuts style) and you'll need to hire more people to fix whatever this thing fucks up. Just about the opposite of what automation is supposed to help with. Good luck!
This is awesome. Somewhat echoing the other feedback here, I'm a little concerned about the "self test" side of things, and would much rather sweep wrote tests. Given my experience with ChatGPT and copilot though, I feel reassured that it would write tests for me. If it wrote tests by default (or used a heuristic on when to write tests), I would find it impossible to not use this I think. Great job.
I’m personally a fan of letting users insert their own instructions per repository, and Sweep can use that for each PR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The code produced in the "getInitials" function handles absolutely no corner cases whatsoever. It also didn't add any tests to the PR. All this does is making sure your website will crap all over itself 2 weeks into using this tool (death by a thousand cuts style) and you'll need to hire more people to fix whatever this thing fucks up. Just about the opposite of what automation is supposed to help with. Good luck!
Sounds like a junior developer to me :)
> - Using the latest APIs that have changed past 2022
Oh good, the frontend devs don't have to worry about AI taking their jobs yet.
Looks cool! I haven’t used it yet but this could be really helpful. What’s your strategy around oss? Why wouldn’t I just clone and use your repo if it can talk directly to GPT4/Claude? And, if I go through you, does Sweep retain my code in a DB or logs?
You could do that, but we have a non-commercial license so you'd have to look out for that. We have had users in our discord set it up themselves, so it's possible. If you go through us we retain your repo in a hashed redis cache (no plaintext code stored) and store some (~50 line) snippets in our logs for debugging. We don't train on any of your code. You can find our privacy policy here: https://docs.sweep.dev/priv…
Your post claims this is open source, but your license says otherwise: https://www.oshwa.org/2014/05/21/cc-oshw
Meanwhile you're soliciting feedback, improvements, reviews, and other free work from the community here...
I'm not a die-hard advocate of open source, but advertising software under a restrictive license as open source comes off as disingenuously trying to sow good will in the community
This is awesome. Somewhat echoing the other feedback here, I'm a little concerned about the "self test" side of things, and would much rather sweep wrote tests. Given my experience with ChatGPT and copilot though, I feel reassured that it would write tests for me. If it wrote tests by default (or used a heuristic on when to write tests), I would find it impossible to not use this I think. Great job.
Thanks for the suggestion, we’re actually going to spend the weekend hacking at a user configurable step that handles different types of tests. I’m personally a fan of letting users insert their own instructions per repository, and Sweep can use that for each PR.
I think you should be less bullish on the "open source". As you kindly clarified for me the other day when I asked [1], only the client is open source. The back end is closed (that's Sweep back end, not the LLM which is obvious) and the product as a whole cannot be self-hosted by third parties.
That's fine (though not clear what the benefit is to developers who might want to contribute), but at the moment the impression being given is that this is an open source product.
Of course, if I have misunderstood I'll be happy to be corrected.
I wish you the best with it as this seems like a very cool product even if its closed at core - but a lack of clarity now may undermine reception and goodwill later.