Version control isn’t specific to A.I workflows, what does this add on top of git?
Is this a worktree type solution so you could make parallel edits?
https://github.com/TZubiri/keyboard-transpositions-checker
My idea is that we should not commit LLM written code, but rather we should commit the prompts. The LLM prompts are source code, the LLM code is target code. If you use typescript and scss, you would commit that, not the generated js and css.
That LLMs are typically non-deterministic introduces some issue, but surely you can achieve determinism with seeds, specific model revisions and 0 temperature.
The claim is that surely we can achieve it, not now but, say, 3 months down the road, or 2 years. Good models are cloud only now, but when they get more power (by Moore's law) they will run on device. At that point (and probably way before) we will have determinism.
The generated code is stored on as a release artifact though, you can find it on the release tab on github. It's just not part of the repo, as it's not strictly source code under the Stallman definition, which has technical and legal implications.
You write as if I were a vibecoder, I'm not.
"There is no code, nothing useful to me,"
There is code. It's in the release tab as a build artifact, not in the diffable repo as source code.
You are expecting this to be a free tool, and to fulfil a thousand hurdles to fit
"what the fuck can I do with that repository? There is no code, nothing useful to me, no automated way to build the application, and the source code can change every time you generate it which means no specifications, no tests, no way to improve this application, and no way to create regression tests. If I ever saw that thing at work, it would go to the trash can."
I think you may be approaching it as a gratis tool that you can build consume and use, and that it should be useful to you and easy to build and fulfill 100 hurdles to reach the quality level of other OS tools like Linux, Git or whatever. This is not it, think of it more like an article with code. It's designed to be read, which I think you didn't do, the semantics of github made you expect a free useful thing.
How does it resolve conflicts? If you want to resolve conflicts automatically, try the excellent Mergiraf, which works by looking at the AST rather than the line-by-line diff: https://mergiraf.org/
You are right that some situations do require careful inspection of changes to avoid "garbage". In others cases you might not care about internals if behaviour looks correct, e.g. for a prototype.
Our "progressive depth" approach in Branching aims to serve both cases - default automatic behaviour, and the option to do Git operations manually when you need to - including editing conflicts manually or with tools like Mergiraf. That way the busy path stays fast, and the careful path is still just plain Git.
I’m just gonna keep typing ‘hg commit’ and plow ahead.
thegeomaster•7mo ago
Also, the ChatGPT generated copy for the landing page is somewhat off-putting.