It writes more informative commits than I could ever make so I’m just reading what it says and mostly copy/pasting completely most of the time, I write all of the changes I’ve made into an LLM with a large context window and it write a very detailed commit not just with a title but with bullet points describing each of the changes precisely

  • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Im shocked at all the negativity, this seems like an obvious good usecase to me, and I’m someone who finds most AI predictive stuff useless.

    I never take more than 3 sec on my commit messages, most of them are “fix bug”, “update lib”, “bump”. So it’s a pretty low bar for it to make better messages than mine.

      • jeffhykin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I make really small and really frequent commits. Like I’ll commit all changes every 10 min regardless of if a feature is done or not, and basically use commits like an undo button.

        I still use git history a lot (per file history usually) but even when browsing years and hundreds of commits into the past, I don’t really need detailed/thoughtful messages to find the change I’m looking for. Binary search plus those 2 or 3 word message hints are lightning fast. And the number of times I commit vastly outweighs the number of times I browse the history.

        When it comes to documentation and other people, feature-branches are my “OK I fully finished this thing; here’s a summary”. I’m also not afraid to squash a ton of useless commits together right before making a PR.

        TDLR; spending more than 3 sec doesn’t help future me or current me, so it’s a waste of time