Comment by deckar01

3 months ago

Does this actually matter for multi-agent use cases? Surely people that are using swarms of AI agents to write code are just letting them resolve merge conflicts.

14 comments

deckar01

Reply
rs545837  3 months ago

So that you don't feel that I am biased about my thing but just giving more context that it's not just me, its actually people saying on twitter how often the merging breaks when you are running production level code and often merging different branches.

https://x.com/agent_wrapper/status/2026937132649247118 https://x.com/omega_memory/status/2028844143867228241 https://x.com/vincentmvdm/status/2027027874134343717

  • deckar01  3 months ago

    Those users all work for companies that sell AI tools. And the first one literally says they let AI fix merge conflicts. The second one is in a thread advocating for 0 code review (which this can’t guarantee) (and also ew). The third is also saying to just have another bot handle merging.

    • rs545837  3 months ago

      Thanks a lot for the fair criticism, Appreciate it! You're right that those links aren't the strongest evidence. The real argument isn't "people are complaining on twitter." It's just much simpler when two agents add different functions to the same file, where git creates a conflict that doesn't need to exist. Weave just knows they're separate entities and merges cleanly. Whether you let AI resolve the false conflict or avoid it entirely is a design choice, we think avoiding it is better.

      9 replies →

vidarh  3 months ago

I'm running agents doing merges right now, and yes and no. They can resolve merges, but it often takes multiple extra rounds. If you can avoid that more often it will definitely save both time and money.