Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Agentic Workflows

github.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#131

Post by gloosx »

onionisafruit wrote: post #53

I noticed this unusual line in go.mod and got curious why it is using replace for this (typically you would `go get github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3@v3.4.0` instead). replace github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 => github.com/Masterminds/semver/v3 v3.4.0 I found this very questionable PR[0]. It appears to have been triggered by dependabot creating an issue for a version upgrade -- which is probably unnecessary to begin w…

I like how it accumulated 3 such replacements before finally getting fixed as a reaction to this comment with PR 14543[0], but after review, two "fix unit tests" commits were added, one of which replaces claude with copilot and the second one messing up the docs markdown, getting merged after that. Agentic workflows are the battle...

https://github.com/github/gh-aw/pull/14543

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#132

Post by dwroberts »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #12
lemonlime227 wrote: post #6

Alternative, less phishy link: https://github.com/github/gh-aw This is on GitHub's official account. For some reason GitHub is deploying this on GitHub pages without a different domain?

Why would that be phishy? They own the GitHub org on GitHub, hence github.github.io. I always thought it was a neat recursive/dogfood type thing even if not really that deep. Like when Reddit had /r/reddit.com or twitter having @twitter

I’ve never seen github.github in the URL before, and without additional info I would have assumed it was someone pulling a trick to impersonate their org

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#133

Post by jrjeksjd8d »

It feels like every cloud product I use is accumulating more of these peripheral features I don't want, while the core functionality is stagnant or even degrading. I'm assuming this is a Conway's Law situation where the company has to grow, and they hire more devs, but those devs can't all work on the core product so they make new greenfield stuff instead.

Until we stop chasing endless growth for it's own sake we're doomed to be stuck these enshittified products.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#134

Post by elAhmo »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #47
huevosabio wrote: post #36

Github should focus on getting their core offerings in shape first. I stopped using GH actions when I ran into this issue: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/151956#discuss... That was almost a year ago and to this date I still get updates of people falling into the same issue.

Ah, the critical problem dilemma. Some percentage of free users become paid users, but the free users take up an unreasonable amount of your time/energy/support. The solution seems simple. Buy their product.

GitHub made more things free than in the past after MS acquisition, so this is driven by them, not just by users, making your 'buy their product' not really viable in this case.

I remember having to pay to have private repos in the past, but I guess MS didn't want my money and now I am a free user. If they offer stuff for free, doesn't mean it should be unreliable and best effort.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#135

Post by catlifeonmars »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #97
girvo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially when you’re deep into the context window. Though that is, at least to me, a bit of an anti-pattern for exactly that reason. I've found it far more successful to blow away the context and restart with a new prompt from the old context instead of having a very long running back-and-forward. Its better than it was with the latest models, I can have them stick around longer, but it's still a useful pattern t…

Opus has also clearly been trained to clear the context fairly often through the plan/code/plan cycle.

Is it training, or prompting from the CLI?

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#136

Post by catlifeonmars »

threecheese wrote: post #87
spankalee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens with all agents I've used and package.json files for npm. Instead of using `npm i foo` the agent string-edits package.json and hallucinates some version to install. Usually it's a kind of ok version, but it's not how I would like this to work. It's worse with renaming things in code. I've yet to see an agent be able to use refactoring tools (if they even exist in VS Code) instead of brute-forcing renames…

For the first, I think maintaining package-add instructions is table stakes, we need to be opinionated here. Agents are typically good at following them, if not you can fall over to a Makefile that does everything. For the second, I totally agree. I continue to hope that agents will get better at refactoring, and I think using LSPs effectively would make this happen. Claude took dozens of minutes to perform a rename…

Does the agent have a way to interact with the lsp?

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#137

Post by catlifeonmars »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #47
huevosabio wrote: post #36

Github should focus on getting their core offerings in shape first. I stopped using GH actions when I ran into this issue: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/151956#discuss... That was almost a year ago and to this date I still get updates of people falling into the same issue.

Ah, the critical problem dilemma. Some percentage of free users become paid users, but the free users take up an unreasonable amount of your time/energy/support. The solution seems simple. Buy their product.

Looks like the issue linked above affected both paid and free users.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#138

Post by catlifeonmars »

antonvs wrote: post #70
huevosabio wrote: post #36

Github should focus on getting their core offerings in shape first. I stopped using GH actions when I ran into this issue: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/151956#discuss... That was almost a year ago and to this date I still get updates of people falling into the same issue.

"In shape" in what sense? This is just hitting the limits of a free account, and the message clearly states that. > people falling into the same issue. Every SaaS provider with a free tier has this issue. How do you suggest it should be addressed?

This affected (probably still affects) paid and free tier users. There’s obviously some corrupt state for some accounts on the backend. As stated in the issue, if you are successfully able to engage support they’re gonna run a script to get your account unstuck. I’m reading between the lines a bit, but that seems to be the gist of it.

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#139

Post by catlifeonmars »

resquawk wrote: post #102
onionisafruit wrote: post #41

This is an extension for the gh cli that takes markdown files as input and creates github actions workflow files from them. Not just any workflow files, but 1000-line beasts that you'll need an LLM to explain what they do. I tried out `gh aw init` and hit Y at the wrong prompt. It created a COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN on the github repo I happened to be in presumably with a token from my account. That's something that reall…

Thanks, this has been changed (no use of local token) and there are now extra confirmations too.

Is this thing production ready?

Re: GitHub Agentic Workflows

#140

Post by catlifeonmars »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #32

There's a lot of hate in this thread, but there are plenty of engineers chomping at the bit for autonomous workflows, because browser-use isn't there yet, and cloud expenses from major providers are also unappealing with so much relatively powerful local compute.

It’d be fine if they included a big disclaimer at the top that this is beta software and they’re not liable for blah blah blah, but without such a disclaimer it’s reasonable to assume the software is ready for production. I think much of the hate is coming from GH misrepresenting its software and people being surprised by the many minor bugs.
Post reply on HN