Live data from Hacker News

How version control will evolve for the agent boom

entire.io

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: How version control will evolve for the agent boom

#21
post #4

> Version Control Will Evolve for the Agent Boom Isn't this the idea behind Yegg's "Beads"?

That is more along the lines of put all the agent communication into a DB that has git’s immutable history. They still use git for the code, and beads (well, DoltDB for storage/versioning) for the tasks and a bit of non-associative memory.

On the topic, I don’t find too much of the prompting to be worth referring to later, but I do always vibe code a search the sessions local web server so I can find things later. The harnesses seem to be getting better at this, but I make a ton of directories for different branches so I can’t always remember if a session was in de512.main or de1024.main

I have had luck with telling an agent to search thru old sessions to write up how to docs or sketch out a python script to automate something having done it a few times.

Re: How version control will evolve for the agent boom

#22
post #14

I find the value of someone steering an AI session to be practically nil for nearly everything. Nobody wonders out loud how a senior developer arrives at the result he does without an AI; they care that his deliverable is high quality and meets whatever standard/requirement exists. So I'm not sure why people going "chop, chop" and "nah make it more red and bigger" is a useful signal of much of anything. No, the futur…

Hi! I work at Entire. We actually have another feature that we announced called Trails which indicates Confidence, Risk, Drift of code changes to give the maintainer more confidence that the code is high quality. Each of those signals -- confidence, risk, drift are determined by a workflow file that the maintainer can create. And trails continuously evaluate every time a change is made. So that's exactly what we're d…

Who would trust the classifiers, though? I would not.

A team of professionals will trust a gateway they built themselves -- by an AI, most likely, as that is boring work -- that works for their organisation and whatever weird quirks and house styles they have. In a year or two when things are a bit more stabilised that'll be dozens of subagents each testing a little thing each in isolation plus a bevvy of software that looks for antipatterns in addition to running tests and linters and what have you. It'll be tested against the ground truth specification and not the boring crap in the middle.

At no point will anybody's session matter. Results count; nothing more.

Re: How version control will evolve for the agent boom

#24
post #14

I find the value of someone steering an AI session to be practically nil for nearly everything. Nobody wonders out loud how a senior developer arrives at the result he does without an AI; they care that his deliverable is high quality and meets whatever standard/requirement exists. So I'm not sure why people going "chop, chop" and "nah make it more red and bigger" is a useful signal of much of anything. No, the futur…

> Nobody wonders out loud how a senior developer arrives at the result he does without an AI; they care that his deliverable is high quality and meets whatever standard/requirement exists.

I think the issue that many may not want to think about is, how do we promote/reward/fire developers in the AI assisted programming age. As part of code reviews, I think it will be second nature to ask "how did you arrive at the code".

Re: How version control will evolve for the agent boom

#25
post #2

I suspect we'll move away from pull requests, because in the LLM world they're the worst way of accepting a contribution. Verbose slop is painful to review, and it's dangerous to accept unreviewed code from a stranger. For a maintainer it's way easier to tell their own agent to reimplement the same idea. It's still slop, but done their way, under their supervision. For popular projects agent-made pull requests become…

Take a look at his keynote at WeAreDevelopers..he starts around the 17:20 mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSoHzgrhk6Q

He does hint around removing away from pull requests!

Re: How version control will evolve for the agent boom

#27
I think a Q&A-based approach is could also be a suitable way to capture the reasoning behind a project. Instead of writing documentation afterward, an AI could interview the developer throughout the process and preserve the questions and answers as project context.

Matt Pocock’s “grill-me” skill is a nice example of this idea: https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/produc...

Re: How version control will evolve for the agent boom

#28
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi! I work at Entire. We actually have another feature that we announced called Trails which indicates Confidence, Risk, Drift of code changes to give the maintainer more confidence that the code is high quality. Each of those signals -- confidence, risk, drift are determined by a workflow file that the maintainer can create. And trails continuously evaluate every time a change is made. So that's exactly what we're d…

Who would trust the classifiers, though? I would not. A team of professionals will trust a gateway they built themselves -- by an AI, most likely, as that is boring work -- that works for their organisation and whatever weird quirks and house styles they have. In a year or two when things are a bit more stabilised that'll be dozens of subagents each testing a little thing each in isolation plus a bevvy of software th…

[dead]

Re: How version control will evolve for the agent boom

#29
"Our hypothesis is simple: session logs are now the most important artifact in software development, and should be stored alongside the code itself in the repository."

Wasn't there an article on HN that went by in the last few weeks about someone actually implementing this, and it just made things worse on every metric?

Pre-AI people periodically wanted version control to be tracking every keystroke and I, along with a lot of other people, feel like they never successfully articulated exactly what we're supposed to get out of that. Session history seems like the same thing. A prompt history, maybe. But I don't want every bit of an AI's musing any more than I want every last stray through that passes through a developer's head either, and for the same reason in both cases: A finite mind has room for only so much stuff.

It is not a viable strategy for a finite mind, be it human or AI, to just "stuff everything into it and expect improvement to result". The first thing that finite mind will need to do to get any value out of it is to extract it into some much, much smaller and less detail-rich summarized version. Which is pretty close to what we already have, except without needing to burn AI time on the process. We have spent decades honing techniques for reducing cognitive load. The AIs benefit from them too, and make them more important than ever, not obsoleted.

Sure, it isn't exactly what we have today. But I think this is a case of the exceptions looming too large in our mind, precisely because they are exceptions. Yes, I've had a handful of cases in my career where I've wondered what were they thinking, and not just as a criticism, but as an actual question. But it's rare, and in the end, not necessarily all that valuable compared to questions like "what is the code doing" and "what is passing through the code that gets this thing done to it". In the vast majority of cases, the code is already only and exactly what I need.

The fact we have this code artifact that is a gateway and a checkpoint through which "intention" does not pass is a positive good thing and is one of the subtle reasons that people miss that makes both large-scale human software development and the current trend of AI-based software development possible in the first place. The highly effective process of trimming down all of this stuff into an artifact that has an extremely-precisely specified function and doesn't need external support from humans or process or history is an amazingly wonderful thing. Larding down the codebase with vast, vast quantities of very fluffy data that is only quite rarely useful is a positive step backwards, not forwards.

Re: How version control will evolve for the agent boom

#30
I don't see this taking off. LLM's produce absolute novels worth of verbose text; and nobody wants to read someone else's conversation with it, and certainly nobody wants to read a multi-year old session log that's 20,000 words long. Also, this is what commit messages are supposed to solve! And the only reason anyone looks at logs are to see what's going wrong, and usually a bisect is easier for finding bad commits rather than doing a deep dive into the specifics.

In the interest of not just being a hater and suggesting an alternative though: if you're implementing a feature (whether yourself or with the agent) have the agent write a spec for the feature and commit THAT. Now you have a nicely organized thing that AI's or people can consume which captures all the intent of the session log with much less noise.

Post reply on HN