deadwood wrote:

@deadwood - Hi All,

Thanks for sharing your experiences and workflows. That's what I was hoping this thread will become. It's really great to see our community embracing AI-assited development.

@terminills, @kaffeine

One thing I noticed in your workflows is that you use git to store a diary - that is you store all failed attempts and allow AI to learn from that. It's a novel approach I didn't think off. It definatelly makes sense during development phase to avoid AI going into endless loops.

At some point though it is time to merge your work to the mainline and here I would suggest a diffent approach:

As long as the repository is to be still usable by humans, the amounts of changes needed to implement a feature needs to be minimized. I'm talking from experience - I often need to go back into git history several years and looking at the changes a person made, try to understand WHY the changes were made.

Generally the chain of changes is:

A->B->C

However if you commit failed attempts, the chain becomes:

A->B1->B2->B3->B4->B...... -> C

The more of such in-between changes the harder it is for human to understand them and they bring no value, because most of the time it's AI doing "shotgun debugging" trying different aproaches until one of them works.

So, my ask is: When merging to mainline, keep the history and code still human readable. Don't force the human to use an AI to explain the history of changes to him because of other AIs iterative bugfixing process.