Why? If you want to reproduce the commit, you simply cherry pick it or download it as a patch.
What are these people doing? There's a reason we don't attach random metadata to commits
Intent-Based Commits
21–30 of 54 posts
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#22I tried maintaining chat hostory and summary in a 'changes' dir in the repo. Claude creates a md file before commiting (timestamp.md, commit hash doesn't work as filename because rebase/squash).
I had to stop doing this because it greatly slowed down and confuse the model, when it did a repo search and found results in some old md files. Plus token usage went through the roof. So keeping changes in the open like that in the repo doesn't work.
Not sure how tfa works, but hopefully the model doesn't see that data.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#23[deleted]
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#24I like this concept because everyone's thought of "commit the agent prompts and reproduce everything from scratch every time" as a "dumb idea" I'm unsure if anyone has actually executed on it in a snappy git-like UI.
Now, because the author took the time to work on it, we can see if this is actually a better method of software development. If LLM development continues deflating the cost of quality software, maybe this will turn out to be the future.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#25> Every commit is reproducible. The prompt is preserved with > some extra attributes about which model and agent was used. > You can re-run any commit against a fresh checkout to see > what Claude generates from the same instruction. I don't see how this is true. LLMs can generate different outputs even with the same model and inputs.
as do most humans
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#26These are like normal commit?
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#27> Every commit is reproducible. The prompt is preserved with > some extra attributes about which model and agent was used. > You can re-run any commit against a fresh checkout to see > what Claude generates from the same instruction. I don't see how this is true. LLMs can generate different outputs even with the same model and inputs.
How different? So do compilers.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#28> Every commit is reproducible. The prompt is preserved with > some extra attributes about which model and agent was used. > You can re-run any commit against a fresh checkout to see > what Claude generates from the same instruction. I don't see how this is true. LLMs can generate different outputs even with the same model and inputs.
How different? So do compilers.
Compilers of the same version should preferably not produce different output with the same input.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
How different? So do compilers.
Compilers of the same version should preferably not produce different output with the same input.
"preferably" doesn't mean t that's the ground truth. Compilers aren't absolutely deterministic, only sufficiently so for most programmers to use.
Re: Intent-Based Commits
#30You don't need to be committing the prompts you're using. There's a whole bunch of back and forth in the prompts as you refine. That's not useful information.
What you should do, is use the context window that you've got from writing the code and refine that into a commit message using a skill.