If a person writes code, should all the process be part of the commit?
If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
231–240 of 410 posts
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#232Nope. Especially with these agents the thinking trace can get very large. No human will ever read it, and the agent will fill up their context with garbage trying to look for information.
I understand the drive for stabilizing control and consistency, but this ain't the way.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#233I 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. I think at a minimum we need a separate "Show HN" for AI posts, that people can filter out, so that users are not incentivized to spam Show HNs hoping to make it to the front page
2. Then that separate group, call it "Vibe HN", gets to decide what they find valuable through their own voting and flagging.
Some guidelines on what makes a good "Vibe HN" post would be helpful to nudge the community towards the things you're suggesting, but I think (1) cutting off self-promotion incentives given the low cost of creating software now and (2) allowing for self-moderation given the sheer number of submissions is the only tenable path
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do something similar, but across three doc types: design, plan, and debug Design works similar to your project.md file, but on a per feature request. I also explicitly ask it to outline open questions/unknowns. Once the design doc (i.e. design/[feature].md) has been sufficiently iterated on, we move to the plan doc(s). The plan docs are structured like `plan/[feature]/phase-N-[description].md` From here, the agent…
> At this point, I either jump back to new design/plan files, or dive into the debug flow. Similar to the plan prompting, debug is instructed to review the current implementation, and outline N-M hypotheses for what could be wrong. I'm biased because my company makes a durable execution library, but I'm super excited about the debug workflow we recently enabled when we launched both a skill and MCP server. You can us…
Why an MCP? dbos already ships a cli that appears to have the same features. Why an MCP over a skill that gives context on using the cli?
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#235Couldn't AI write the commit-message based on the prompts-history up till the commit thus making it easier to understand for any future reviewers what lead to and what is in a specific commit?
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#236no and neither should be the actual code. you should at least remove the excessive bs that the ai comments and autisms about
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#237Source code repositories such as git are for "sources" which are direct outputs of human effort. Sny generated stuff is not "source". It is same as the outputs of compile and build activities. Only the direct outputs of human effort should go into git.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#238In principle, the documentation that's included in the code edit should have all the relevant information that a future agent would need.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#239I 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…
All the agentic AI projects remind me of "draw the rest of the owl": https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/how-to-draw-an-owl - there's a lot of steps missing.
Unlike many people, I'm on the trailing edge of this. Company is conservative about AI (still concerned about the three different aspects of IP risk) and we've found it not very good at embedded firmware. I'm also in the set of people who've been negatively polarized by the hype. I might be willing to give it another go, but what I don't see from the impressive Show HN projects (e.g. the WINE clone from last week) is .. how do you get those results?
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#240The way I've been storing prompts is a directory in the project called 'prompts' and an .md file for each topic/feature. Since I usually iterate a lot on the same prompt (to minimise context rot), I store many versions of the same prompt ordered chronologically (newest at top).
That way if I need to find a prompt from some feature from the past, I just find the relevant .md file and it's right at the top.
Interestingly, my projects are way better documented (via prompts) than they ever were in the pre-agentic era.