This week I created a "clanker" account backed by an LLM agent on GitHub and have been iterating with it on one of my open source projects as if it was just a super fast contributor. And... it has been fine.

I was expecting it to be awkward or annoying but it just kind of worked. I write issues, I tell the clanker to look at the issues, it generates PRs, I review the PRs and test them.

I was expecting something to really be a snag this week but I have enjoyed the process and using the tools. And the advantage of using the clanker is I go from issue to PR in a few minutes and don't "page out" my own context of the problem which is not the case usually with an open source contribution.

I still feel like software needs to move at least at the pace of someone with a vision and taste to test and review which forges like GitHub seems fine at.

This is a good article. I've been working on infrastructure to facilitate safe vibe coding with a focus on data synchronisation with simple access control and analytics. See https://saasufy.com/

I think this article makes some great points though I'm not sure if GitHub itself is the limiting factor. My view is that the new abstractions are yet to be discovered or widely adopted but I'm seeing some clear patterns arise. This is something I spend a lot of time thinking about because the new abstractions must fit within existing paradigms to provide a smooth transition and to overcome trust barriers.

I think I still have some work on the packaging side. Will likely need to narrow down my focus to cater to this new deep tech trend I see coming. I'm kind of waiting for some influencer to invent the right terminology for what I've been working towards so that I can jump on that bandwagon.

Deep tech trends need to permeate into the business lingo before they can get any traction and to do that, the new abstraction has to prove itself in some influential circles and earn itself a new label/buzzword.

I don't feel like this article really answers the question of why this is the wrong shape. CI takes too long? What else?

You can make your CI less intensive, that doesn't require a different Github. What features would a 'differently shaped' platform have?

"I think of GitHub as a collaboration tool."

Well yes but git itself is the tool at the base of the pyramid you call GitHub and co. It seems you actively want git to look like all the other things you are used to and they are all walled gardens.

GitHub takes git and basically turns it back into subversion and co. Instead of all that anarchic "no repo is king" long haired hippie nonsense, you want central control 8) I do too but only within my company, so we use gitea (other git control freak enablement platforms are available).

Why not go back to basics and start with git? Just git. Add a comms channel - it can be telephone, SMS, email, Slack, semaphore or smoke signals. Then add stuff on top of the basics and see what happens.

Quite a large project works like that already. You might have heard of Linux.

Or stick with a canned effort like GitHub (I use it for some things) and accept that you get what you are given if you abrogate your options to someone else.