Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 410 posts

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#191

Post by peyton »

the-grump wrote: post #182
jedberg wrote: post #173

The way I write code with AI is that I start with a project.md file, where I describe what I want done. I then ask it to make a plan.md file from that project.md to describe the changes it will make (or what it will create if Greenfield). I then iterate on that plan.md with the AI until it's what I want. I then ask it to make a detailed todo list from the plan.md and attach it to the end of plan.md. Once I'm fully sa…

Stealing this brilliant idea. Thank you for sharing!

For big tasks you can run the plan.md’s TODOs through 5.2 pro and tell it to write out a prompt for xyz model. It’ll usually greatly expand the input. Presumably it knows all the tricks that’ve been written for prompting various models.

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#192

Post by grey-area »

dang wrote: post #51

I floated that idea a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47096202 , although I used the word "prompts" which users pointed out was obsolete. "Session" seems better for now. The objections I heard, which seemed solid, are (1) there's no single input to the AI (i.e. no single session or prompt) from which such a project is generated, (2) the back-and-forth between human and AI isn't exactly like working wit…

1. Comments - Ban fully automated HN comments/accounts - can’t think of any reason to allow these or others to have to read them.

2. Require submissions which use GAI to have a text tag in title Show HN GAI would be fine for example - this would be a good first step and can be policed by readers mostly.

I do think point 1 is important to prevent fully automated voting rings etc.

Point 2 is preparation for some other treatment later - perhaps you could ask for a human written explanation on these ones?

I don’t think any complex or automated requirements are going to be enforceable or done so keep it simple. I also wonder whether show posts are enough - I’ve noticed a fair few blogspam posts using AI to write huge meandering articles.

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#193

Post by vtemian »

Git was designed for humans.

Commits, branches, and the entire model works really well for human-to-human collaboration, but it starts to be too much for agent-to-human interactions.

Sharing the entire session, in a human, readble way, offering a rich experiences to other humans to understand, is way better then having git annotations.

That's why we built https://github.com/wunderlabs-dev/claudebin.com. A free and open-source Claude Code session sharing tool, which allows other humans to better understand decisions.

Those sessions can be shared in PR https://github.com/vtemian/blog.vtemian.com/pull/21, embedded https://blog.vtemian.com/post/vibe-infer/ or just shared with other humans.

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#194

Post by wolletd »

frank00001 wrote: post #185
jedberg wrote: post #173

The way I write code with AI is that I start with a project.md file, where I describe what I want done. I then ask it to make a plan.md file from that project.md to describe the changes it will make (or what it will create if Greenfield). I then iterate on that plan.md with the AI until it's what I want. I then ask it to make a detailed todo list from the plan.md and attach it to the end of plan.md. Once I'm fully sa…

Sounds like the spec driven approach. You should take a look at this https://github.com/github/spec-kit

> 110 releases in 6 months

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#195

Post by kzahel »

I would love to be able to share all my sessions automatically. But I would want to share a carefully PII/secrets redacted session. I added a "session sharing" feature to my agent wrapper that just grabs innerHTML and uploads to cloudflare. So I can share how I produced/vibe coded an entire project from start to finish.

For example: https://github.com/kzahel/PearSync/blob/main/sessions/sessio...

I think it's valuable to share that so people who are interested can see how you interact with agents. Sharing raw JSONL is probably a waste and contains too many absolute paths and potential for sharing unintentionally.

https://github.com/peteromallet/dataclaw?tab=readme-ov-file#... is one project I saw that makes an attempt to remove PII/secrets. But I certainly wouldn't share all my sessions right now, I just don't know what secrets accidentally got in them.

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#196

Post by lionkor »

Sone of the best engineers I've seen use commit messages to explain their intent, sometimes even in many sentences, below the message.

I bet, without trying to be snarky, that most AI users don't even know you can commit with an editor instead of -m "message" and write more detail.

It's good that AI fans are finding out that commits are important, now don't reinvent the wheel and just spend a couple minutes writing each commit message. You'll thank yourself later.

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#197

Post by Jach »

In general, no, but sometimes, yes, or at least linked from the commit the same way user stories/issues are. Admittedly the 'sometimes' from my perspective is mostly when there's a need to educate fellow humans about what's possible or about good prompt techniques and workarounds for the AI being dumb. It can also reveal more of x% by AI, y% by human by for example diffing the outputs from the session against the final commits.

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#199

Post by insin »

solarkraft wrote: post #134
827a wrote: post #94

IMO: This might be a contrarian opinion, but I don't think so. Its much the same problem as asking, for example, if every single line you write, or every function, becomes a commit. The answer to this granularity is, much like anything, you have to think of the audience: Who is served by persisting these sessions? I would suspect that there is little reason why future engineers, or future LLMs, would need access to t…

I agree that probably not everything should be stored - it’s too noisy. But the reason the session is so interesting is precisely the later part of the conversation - all the corrections in the details, where the actual , more precise requirements crystallize.

AKA the code. You're all talking about the code.

Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?

#200

Post by hrmtst93837 »

mandel_x wrote: post #2

I’ve been thinking about a simple problem: We’re increasingly merging AI-assisted code into production, but we rarely preserve the thing that actually produced it — the session. Six months later, when debugging or reviewing history, the only artifact left is the diff. So I built git-memento. It attaches AI session transcripts to commits using Git notes.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN