Remote desktop protocol expert, OSS contributor and Microsoft MVP. I love designing products with Rust, C# and PowerShell. Proud to be CTO at Devolutions. 🇨🇦
@adamhjk Where do you keep intermediate artifacts for your software factory? Files in git can work well but I don't want to pollute the repo with tons of files that are no longer needed after a PR has been merged. I'm thinking maybe this should live somewhere alongside the ticket system
I keep seeing good comments on Linear and how agents work well with it, so now I am wondering if it wouldn't be a better foundation for an AI software factory than JIRA. Thoughts? Who's using Linear and can provide feedback?
It doesn't help that the JIRA MCP has been really unstable for the past month - it keeps logging you out, you need to try again several times. I gave up and just disabled it in my AI agents because of all the resulting noise. It's weird because the Atlassian CLI works
I wish GitHub pull requests could automatically exclude or remove entire directories of files when merging them - this would make software factories a lot easier with intermediate artifacts on a branch that get discarded later
@davidfowl I've been saying the same for months now. It doesn't matter if there is an upfront cost in development to build the tools required to close the agentic feedback loop - it will pay off a thousand times over
@Phatmandrake ooooh you mean the context size for the model. the default context window is small (266K), but I can request the long context (1.0M). I haven't played much with the long context, I get good results with the small one, at least for code reviews.
Do you use Claude Code, Codex or Cursor, but want to leverage the rubber duck reviews from GitHub Copilot? I've got you covered! https://t.co/mkKeLj7XSq
@varoonkodithala@addyosmani@warpdotdev You're obviously onto something here, I really like the video that is trimmed to just the meaningful parts for easier review. Do you support Windows desktop apps as part of this workflow?
verification is the biggest bottleneck for coding agents right now according to @addyosmani.
we @warpdotdev have put a lot of thought into building a good computer-use tool for Warp Factories. every agents gets a computer to navigate the apps they built, take screenshots and recordings, and post them back for human review.
3-4mins of activity get edited down to 15 clips stitched together with cursor clicks, mouse animations, and key presses.
we've been able to dramatically cut our time to merge and unlocked faster iteration + review cycles, especially for projects that are hard to mock out locally!
That's a problem left unsolved by MSIX, it just made it a hard breaking change. A single letter change breaks this - even when renewing with the *same* CA, this happens. You need to code sign with the old certificate to declare the new publisher name and publish before the old certificate expires. This is a truly painful process, and if it wasn't enough, you need to fully uninstall old versions of the application before you can install the new ones when this happens. Azure Artifact Signing is supposed to keep that string representation stable for the same publisher, but the proper fix would have been to use the now-stable publisher ID encoded in the special OID suffix
@FrayxRulez@dotMorten@vitalyster The MSIX publisher identity being tied to the exact string representation of the certificate subject name is by far the biggest historical mistake that has been made around MSIX. It's incredibly painful
@FrankLesniak My main concern is how a ton of issues go beyond just a one-shot autonomous prompt that you wait on with a pull request that can be merged as-is. How do you handle making multiple passes of improvements and review until the result is satisfactory, without wasting *more* time?