51–60 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the problem with intel inside? That’s perfectly normal.
What’s the problem with intel inside? That’s perfectly normal. I don't want my computer to look like it's racing in NASCAR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn’t quite work for cases where you’re either the primary author of a commit (asking the model for some touch ups) or when you heavily edit model output. Easier to just say “this is who’s driving the AI” and keep it to your username.
> doesn’t quite work for cases In that case, the "Co-authored-by: Copilot" method doesn't quite work either. You have to split the commit somehow. > this is who’s driving the AI As indicated by the consistent user.email value.
It's only one sliver of the problem here, but -- do you know how often I update my code editor? Like once every five or ten years, to the version that was released a year or two ago. I do my own commits by hand so it's moot anyway, but there's a fair bit of "leopards ate my face" going in the GitHub thread.
VSCode updates itself what feels like daily so everyone is on the bleeding edge. There are upsides and downsides to that but it doesn’t feel like a trade-off many have made purposefully.
I work at MSFT. I can understand the incentives behind this change. Although I am not sure how different GitHub culture is from MSFT. I am sure they are closely tracking this metric of Copilot authored PRs so that everyone down from Nadella to the dev and PM for this can use it to hype up GH Copilot. It’s also a simple and clean metric that goes well in your Connects (performance discussion), you could say the featur…
All the people there asking the simple question of why it got changed and getting ignored.
Original PR: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/pull/310226
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VSCode updates itself what feels like daily so everyone is on the bleeding edge. There are upsides and downsides to that but it doesn’t feel like a trade-off many have made purposefully.
VS Code is updated monthly. More and more they also release a bugfix to the monthly release, a week or two after.
Are they apologizing? Was it a bug? Why did they make this decision and what's the end goal? It's so unclear from the message - as evidenced by a lot of the responses.
They did say it's a bug that they even caught during testing yet somehow let go through. Author of the issue mentioned this on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47994193
All the people there asking the simple question of why it got changed and getting ignored.
IMO (and I am biased because I have written about this before in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47164481) but I believe it's to make sure they're legally covering their users, and making sure users of AI tools do at least have some attribution for AI-derived contributions
Inserting authorship claims is incredibly tacky. It’s today’s “Intel Inside” sticker. I don’t want your stickers on the computer I bought. “Sent from my iPhone” isn’t an authorship claim.
On the flip side there are people who believe that LLM-assisted coding changes require attribution in git history.