Programming

17314 readers

187 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

I've lately been making my git commit messages with AI (reddthat.com)

submitted 1 year ago by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/programming@programming.dev

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'd rather see no commit message than an AI-generated one.

Also if I wasn't misinterpreting OP, it sounded from the post I was responding to like OP provided a summary to the LLM along with code. If OP's writing a summary anyway, why not just proofread that and use that as the commit message rather than involving an LLM in the middle of the process?

Even in a hypothetical where the company hired human tech writers to write commit messages for developers, I'd rather have in the commit message what the developer had to say rather than the possible misinterpretation of the tech writer.