I am curious what people think about the use case that is different for AI agents compared to humans. Aside from the things people use SCM for already that is.
Fossil fits the bill if you ask me because it has built in forum and stuff too, so Agentic discourse can happen there, commits happen in the SCM history. And it has auto sync so they can automatically sync their state.
But I love fossil for this. You can create users for all of the agents (or agent roles). The CLI for fossil is just a binary and it compiles nearly everywhere.
+1 over here for agentic fossil. With fossil the "work" is integrated in with the code. Beads separates this out, the beads are instances of work that agents can consume, and they aren't part of the work repo. I could see why you might want this, but I still think that fossil gives you more utility.
More info on beads if you are curious: https://github.com/gastownhall/beads
So if I wanted to use fossil scm, i'd have to find a way to glue that on, and now ... we'Re basically in the same situation as with any other solution: it supports only a subset of the feature we want.
and especially CI pre "merge" is a hard requirement, and fossil doesnt have any concept for that i think?
But the last time i evaluated it was in the mid 2010s, so things may have progressed since? but couldn't find anything on cursory glance and AI confirmed that position, but we all know how often its wrong... so how did yall solve that issue?
If you want human review on the code I’m thinking keep it simple and just review in branches/tags before merging OR even just have loose patch files.
As we’re seeing with resurgence of command-line utility by agents, that extends equally well to the O.G. diff/patch. A PR is literally just a diff with commentary and an approval process prior to merging. Diffs can be attached to forum topics and so-forth.
Lots of possibilities, but I think the main thing discussed here is how is version control better suited to AI agents moving forward.