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.
deleted by creator
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
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
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.