Maybe you should write a script that spits out AI description for a commit and then run it for commits without a proper description? Since it doesn’t require any insight from the commit author it should work the same.
Can we at least mention, though, that that’s kind of nonsensical, too? Give me a *very* high-level summary of what changed, but then the rest of the commit message should be the why (unless that’s genuinely obvious, like when adding a feature).
If I actually want to know what changed, I can look at the code changes. I can’t find the why anywhere else, though. Nor can an LLM having to describe those random code changes.
I don’t even waste my time anymore frankly. people just do a git add . and git commit-m "did some stuff".
sorry, I’ve just worked with a lot of shitbag devs that honestly think of git as a flat filesystem that can’t even properly branch or merge.
personally, I still put in clear commits and even do patch level adds. from what I have experienced though, using AI to generate those commit messages based on actual changes would be a godsend compared to the fuckery I’ve had to deal with.
thank god now we’ve AI to do this
deleted by creator
Why not get them fired? Call me cruel anyone who feels like it, but leaving no sign of what has been done is just plain shit attitude to colleagues
I feel ya my home! This comment burns me with the feels of a thousand suns. I hate that it’s related so much to this.
Totally agree with y’all.
I knew a guy who said that this was meaningless, because all the changes can be seen in the code. Like, are you really asking for a human diff!? 🤬
Who needs a table of contents? Just read the book!
deleted by creator
Maybe you should write a script that spits out AI description for a commit and then run it for commits without a proper description? Since it doesn’t require any insight from the commit author it should work the same.
Can we at least mention, though, that that’s kind of nonsensical, too? Give me a *very* high-level summary of what changed, but then the rest of the commit message should be the why (unless that’s genuinely obvious, like when adding a feature).
If I actually want to know what changed, I can look at the code changes. I can’t find the why anywhere else, though. Nor can an LLM having to describe those random code changes.
I’m now tempted to do this for all several thousand commits in the main branch, and at the very least create a better changelog.
🙄
this is literally the only thing I think is acceptable for AI to do for developers.
nobody reads commit history anyway and they always go straight to blame to find out who to kick the fuck out of.
And the blame has those commit messages. That is beside the fact that most authors may not even work there anymore
I don’t even waste my time anymore frankly. people just do a
git add .andgit commit -m "did some stuff".sorry, I’ve just worked with a lot of shitbag devs that honestly think of git as a flat filesystem that can’t even properly branch or merge.
personally, I still put in clear commits and even do patch level adds. from what I have experienced though, using AI to generate those commit messages based on actual changes would be a godsend compared to the fuckery I’ve had to deal with.