Welp. I've been using GitLab for over a decade and have been pretty happy with it. Deployed and maintained several instances, some personal, some for small hobby orgs, some for work.

But it looks like it is time to ditch GitLab for good:

> Software will be built by machines, directed by people. AI is the substrate on which future software gets built. Agents will plan, code, review, deploy, and repair.
https://about.gitlab.com/blog/gitlab-act-2/

#GitLab #AI #FuckAI #SoftwareDevelopment

GitLab Act 2

A letter to our customers and our investors.

about.gitlab.com

Software has been "built by machines, directed by people" for decades.

That's what compilers and linkers do, that's what uncountable lines of Bash and endless CI/CD pipelines are – machines building software, directed by people.

And for decades, the bottleneck has not been churning out code. It was code review, it was quality control, it was bug fixing. AI slop makes that *worse*, not better:
https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/89367

GitLab, and the rest of the industry, is solving for the wrong problem.

If No One Pays for Proof, Everyone Will Pay for the Loss

This post was initially written in French, Si personne ne paie pour la preuve, tout le monde paiera pour le sinistre Let’s start with a truism. In ordinary life, just as in economic life, we have to make decisions without ever knowing everything. Every decision involves some uncertainty, and therefore some risk. Some risks are … Continue reading If No One Pays for Proof, Everyone Will Pay for the Loss →

Freakonometrics

@rysiek

they try to handle this by using multiple Agents now, and one gets the „personality“ of the reviewer, one for writing the concepts and requirements etc.

but if no human cares to thoroughly sit down and describe precisely what the real needs are that the software and its features must fulfill and how the fulfillment of these requirements can be verified (acceptance criteria) , a project will never fulfill the needs of humans or the company they work for

@lazyb0y no amount of description, however "thorough" or "precise", will be enough. Dijkstra knew this decades ago:
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html
E.W.Dijkstra Archive: On the foolishness of "natural language programming". (EWD 667)