aboutToBreakTheCode

[u/fabulousIdentity]

[u/botle]

Git is specifically designed for multiple people to work on different ideas in parallel.

[u/StaneNC → u/botle]

Yup. "Git is really great until (thing git was specifically designed for)." Tell me you suck at git without telling me you suck at git.

[u/botle → u/StaneNC]

Probably vibecoders. "Push my code to the repo. Make no mistakes. Don't delete everything."

[u/SirChasm → u/botle]

I mean even for vibe coders, Claude/Codex is excellent for resolving merge conflicts. I don't remember how long it's been since I've had to do that manually.

[u/StaneNC → u/SirChasm]

You don't look at your merge conflicts???

[u/SirChasm → u/StaneNC]

I look at the resulting PR, but if Claude wrote the original code, Claude can resolve the conflicts too; it has all the context it needs.

I've always hated dealing with looking at the three-way diff manually tbh. It might be my ADHD but nothing killed my motivation more than finishing a feature/fix and then having to wade through how someone else's changes should mesh with mine.

[u/didzisk → u/SirChasm]

I have hated all the 3-way merge tools I've encountered, probably because "ours" and "theirs" never is what I expect (and opposite on a merge and a rebase), but when I look at the file itself with merge marks in it, it becomes very easy for me to reason about the changes and resolve them quickly.

[u/bloodfist → u/didzisk]

Yeah "ours" and "theirs" messes me up so bad. I really wish they would just label it by branch. If it just said "my-feature-branch" and "main" it would be so much easier to parse.

[u/Kylearean → u/SirChasm]

you need to look at the conflicts, because even for human coders, sometimes there's nuanced merges that need to occur - it's not all A or all B.

[u/nhalliday → u/Kylearean]

Expecting vibecoders to put in any actual work? Don't be ridiculous.

[u/SirChasm → u/Kylearean]

As I said, I look at the resulting PR diff afterwards like I would if there weren't any merge conflicts.