Pretty much nothing. We'd remove the AI integrations, the UI elements, then back to where we were. Luckily, we have no load bearing AI.
But if everyone else got to keep their AI, we'd lose customers very quickly.
But if everyone else got to keep their AI, we'd lose customers very quickly.
Related to code quality, I've noticed developers picking up tricks from AI. Like using feature/xxxxx as the branch name. Last year exactly zero developers used this convention. If any used paths in their branches, it was almost certainly their name. Now everyone uses this convention. Though, they do use correct capitalization instead of lowercase freaking _everything_ that AI does.
But for branches in addition to Feature/, we're seeing Hotfix/, Modernization/, you name it. If you're parking branches for a long time without completing them, I'm 100% appreciative they're categorized.
(Personally, for long term parked branches I prefer `{username/dev name}/` branches because then you know who the owner is without having to look at the commit log and guess based on recent commit authors. But that's the fun thing about branching conventions, there are so many to choose from, many of which have been around forever.)
[0] https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
The AI learned it from somewhere though, it didn't come up with it on its own
TF at least gave a nice folder view on the branches screen, which we've lost now we've moved to GitHub, but it has made it easier to enforce.
People have been doing this for years.
Tell me something I don't know. My point is that it's usage has seen a _measurable_ increase where I work over the last two years.
I don't think I have a single "feature/*" branch before 2024. Developer names, feature names, sure. But specifically feature/, no.
> I don't think I have a single "feature/*" branch before 2024.
You might not, but other people have. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't assume that your personal experience is representative of the whole world of software.
For me, this popularity is graphable. Telling me it's a convention doesn't change that fact. I'm sorry.
But holy heck, I really have to argue with their literal first point. All lowercase, for what reason? It's never explained why they insist on a dated convention instead of proper style.
And in what world is "feat/" abbreviation considered allowable?
I lump this in with advice from people who put their source in a src/ folder instead of Source/.
But that doesn't change my argument. For me, this popularity is graphable. Telling me it's a convention doesn't change that fact. I'm sorry.
Huh.
I've been using that convention for ages, but I have to remind Claude on new projects to actually use git in the first place, and then also specifically tell it to use branches.
Then again, I was using em-dashes before they got un-cool.
Regex the pattern over time if you want to make an argument against my supporting example.
'twas an expression of surprise, not an argument.
Surprise in both directions, 'cause what you like about Claude is one of the ways it fails for me.
> Now do an analysis of the people at your company.
It was mandatory at several of them.
> Regex the pattern over time if you want to make an argument against my supporting example.
I wonder which of the various employers I've had in the last decade would consider me regexing commits to be an NDA violation?
I choose not to discover.
Is this a subtle joke?
Proper weight distribution is critical in determining where the seams are.