The reason I do is because it makes the agents more capable of working with the code in the future, they put more info into the commit messages than I do and when they look back the commit messages help them navigate the change history better.
Also, if you see a commit message that just looks whacked, completely missing the actual objective - that might be a Claude hallucination.
Working professionals are, if at all competent to be committing code to a professional code base, entirely capable of writing their own commit messages.
If they can’t write the commit message, they can’t sufficiently explain in writing the commit they just made to anyone. So, they should not be working professionally on a code base.
If they are capable of writing the commit message with their own understanding in their own words, but they choose not to communicate their understanding in the commit message? Also disqualifying, they should not be working professionally on a code base. Human communication is essential to this work.
That this is a controversial position, is a clear sign of the Slopocalypse.
Now I definitely know you haven’t seen a real professional codebase. Professional git repos are full of one sentence commit messages with little to no explanation of what’s in the change set.
Humans suck at communication, especially when there’s pressure to get product features out the door. AI driven repos are full of beautifully summarized commits with clear explanations of architectural choices, change motivation, etc.
Now I definitely know you haven’t seen a real professional codebase.
Extremely wrong. So much for your assumptions.
Professional git repos are full of one sentence commit messages with little to no explanation of what’s in the change set.
Yes, humans can communicate poorly, of course. But people letting the LLMs do it do not understand what is in the change, and the LLM certainly doesn’t. There’s no one at all to ask because no one understands what was changed or why.
I’ll take “sometimes lazy but they wrote it and their understanding of it can be interrogated”, all week.
If I ask an LLM to do something, the commit message is usually just the prompt. If it’s for code I wrote myself, my process is to take the message, read it over, then edit appropriately before running git commit myself. It seems that this last step is what does it.
Do you let Claude write your commit messages?
The reason I do is because it makes the agents more capable of working with the code in the future, they put more info into the commit messages than I do and when they look back the commit messages help them navigate the change history better.
Also, if you see a commit message that just looks whacked, completely missing the actual objective - that might be a Claude hallucination.
do you need clauds help in the bathroom too?
maybe it needs that data about you too to understand you better
You must not be working professionally.
Working professionals are, if at all competent to be committing code to a professional code base, entirely capable of writing their own commit messages.
If they can’t write the commit message, they can’t sufficiently explain in writing the commit they just made to anyone. So, they should not be working professionally on a code base.
If they are capable of writing the commit message with their own understanding in their own words, but they choose not to communicate their understanding in the commit message? Also disqualifying, they should not be working professionally on a code base. Human communication is essential to this work.
That this is a controversial position, is a clear sign of the Slopocalypse.
Now I definitely know you haven’t seen a real professional codebase. Professional git repos are full of one sentence commit messages with little to no explanation of what’s in the change set.
Humans suck at communication, especially when there’s pressure to get product features out the door. AI driven repos are full of beautifully summarized commits with clear explanations of architectural choices, change motivation, etc.
Extremely wrong. So much for your assumptions.
Yes, humans can communicate poorly, of course. But people letting the LLMs do it do not understand what is in the change, and the LLM certainly doesn’t. There’s no one at all to ask because no one understands what was changed or why.
I’ll take “sometimes lazy but they wrote it and their understanding of it can be interrogated”, all week.
I used to put messages into my commits “if anyone reads this and messages me, I will give you $5”
Only one has ever been noticed by a coworker and that was like 5+ years after I made the commit
If I ask an LLM to do something, the commit message is usually just the prompt. If it’s for code I wrote myself, my process is to take the message, read it over, then edit appropriately before running
git commitmyself. It seems that this last step is what does it.