I appreciate it's different than git, that type of argument for monorepos is not new.

Agents coding is akin to having a very large developer team, who may or may not be online 24/7.

Anthropic is calling it very specialized, and it's a little baffling.. maybe I'm missing something.

There's no way software development is the same anymore. The previous ceremonies and structures and seats at the table at each stage were human based, and now that's a different make up to the point that different steps and processes are needed.

There's nothing more fundamental to growing software development other than making tools like this available.

My hope is a vibe coded internal mono repo management tool can aim for a v2 with multi-tenancy built in.

Was anyone else looking forward to feature flags as a part of a post like this?

It's also hard to believe all these non-Git alternatives aren't merely an attempt to capture developers into a new proprietary solution.

This could have been done as an open-source fork of Git.

Another issue that I believe Anthropic here didn't state is that git performance _severely_ get degraded when you have hundred of commits landing in parallel. Hence why I fell back to the daily commit approach. You get less granularity but you get stability.

    We’re completely rethinking our priors. This project prompted us to take a very hard look at other workflows designed for human scale. A proper merge queue, for example, doesn’t make much sense at agent scale. What does CI even mean when hundreds or even thousands of changes can merge while tests are running? We haven’t been able to effectively replicate the industry standard of a global repository lock on the merge queue, so instead, we’ve invested in post-merge and pre-deploy automated testing. This does mean that concurrent changes can conflict, but Claude can typically fix these conflicts faster than humans can even identify them.