Can reviewers adjust the chapter splits manually if they disagree with how it grouped the PR, or are the chapters fixed once generated?
Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
11–20 of 119 posts
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#12Does Stage work for PRs that have multiple commits? These could be considered "stacked diffs", but in the same PR.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#13Can reviewers adjust the chapter splits manually if they disagree with how it grouped the PR, or are the chapters fixed once generated?
We don't support that currently, but would love to see examples where you disagree with the chapters so we can figure out the best interface
You can regenerate the chapters anytime, but it might lead to similar results as the first time
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#14The idea of a workplace where people can’t be bothered to read what the ai is coding but someone else is expected to read and understand if it’s good or slop just doesn’t really add up.
I personally see the value of code review but I promise you the most vocal vibe coders I work with don’t at all and really it feels like something that could be just automated to even me.
The age of someone gatekeeping the codebase and pushing their personal coding style foibles on the rest of the team via reviews doesn’t feels like something that will exist anymore if your ceo is big on vibe coding.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#15> Stage automatically analyzes the diff, clusters related changes, and generates chapters.
Isn't that what commits are for? I see no reason for adding this as an after-thought. If the committers (whether human or LLM) are well-behaved, this info is already available in the PR.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#16Does Stage work for PRs that have multiple commits? These could be considered "stacked diffs", but in the same PR.
Chapters are regenerated every time a new commit is pushed to a PR. Our thinking is that the chapters should serve as "auto stacked diffs" since they should follow a logical order.
Do you or your team use stacking in your workflows?
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#17I like the chapters thing, a lot of PRs I review should really be like 5 prs so its nice to have it auto split like that. Do you see a world where it splits them up on the git level?
> a lot of PRs I review should really be like 5 prs
Can't you push back on that? I feel like this tool is trying to fix misbehaved colleagues...
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#18> Stage automatically analyzes the diff, clusters related changes, and generates chapters. Isn't that what commits are for? I see no reason for adding this as an after-thought. If the committers (whether human or LLM) are well-behaved, this info is already available in the PR .
In our experience, it's difficult to create well-mannered commits as you code and new ideas pop into your head or you iterate on different designs (even for LLMs). One concept we toyed around with was telling an LLM to re-do a branch using "perfect commits" right before putting up a PR. But even then you might discover new edge cases and have to tack them on as additional commits.
We thought git wasn't the right level of abstraction and decided to tackle things at the PR level instead. Curious to hear your experiences!
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#19> Stage automatically analyzes the diff, clusters related changes, and generates chapters. Isn't that what commits are for? I see no reason for adding this as an after-thought. If the committers (whether human or LLM) are well-behaved, this info is already available in the PR .
I feel that grouping related change in commits can be challenging, as git really presents commits as grouping in time, not topic.
It is certainly possible to do topic-grouping in commits, but it requires significant effort to het that consistent on a team level.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#20This is a really cool idea but where's the moat? What's stopping someone from replicating the functionality?