What does this have to do with 1M context windows… That’s just Cursor keeping your old file around.
Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
71–80 of 199 posts
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you squash when you merge the PR (and if you don't, why not?), why even care? Do people actually look through the commit history to review a PR? When I review I'm just looking at the finished product.
Indiscriminate squashing sucks. Atomic commits are great if you want the git history to actually represent a logical changelog for a project, as opposed to a pointless literal keylog of what changes each developer made and when. It will help you if you need to bisect a regression later. It sucks if you bisect and find the change happened in some enormous incohesive commit. Squashing should be done carefully to reform…
Alternative to squashing is not a beautiful atomic commits. It is series of commits where commit #5 fixes commit #2 and intruduces bug to be fixed on commit #7. Where commit #3 introduces new class that is going to be removed in commits #6 and #7.
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#73I’m completely paranoid about claude messing with my .git folder so I push regularly
For the same reason, I run OpenCode under Mac's sandbox-exec command with some rules to prevent writes to the .git folder or outside of the project (but allowing writes to the .cache and opencode directories).
sandbox-exec -p "(version 1)(allow default)(deny file-write* (subpath \"$HOME\"))(allow file-write* (subpath \"$PWD\") (subpath \"$HOME/.local/share/opencode\"))(deny file-write* (subpath \"$PWD/.git\"))(allow file-write* (subpath \"$HOME/.cache\"))" /opt/homebrew/bin/opencode
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
This simply isn’t true unless you have to put everything in one commit? To be honest, I usually get this with people who have never realized that you can merge dead code (code that is never called). You can basically merge an entire feature this way, with the last PR “turning it on” or adding a feature flag — optionally removing the old code at this point as well.
So maintaining old and new code for X amounts of time? That sounds acceptable in some limited cases, and terrible in many others. If the code is being changed for another reason, or the new feature needs to update code used in many places, etc. It can be much more practical to just have a long-lived branch, merge changes from upstream yourself, and merge when it's ready. My industry is also fairly strictly regulated…
> So maintaining old and new code for X amounts of time?
No more than normal? Generally speaking, the author working on the feature is the only one who’s working on the new code, right? The whole team can see it, but generally isn’t using it.
> If the code is being changed for another reason, or the new feature needs to update code used in many places, etc. It can be much more practical to just have a long-lived branch, merge changes from upstream yourself, and merge when it's ready.
If you have people good at what they do ... maybe. I’ve seen this end very badly due to merge artefacts, so I wouldn’t recommend doing any merges, but rebasing instead. In any case, you can always copy a function to another function: do_something_v2(). Then after you remove the v1, remove the v2 prefix. It isn’t rocket science.
> My industry is also fairly strictly regulated and we plainly cannot do that even if we wanted to, but that's admittedly a niche case.
I can’t think of any regulations in any country (and I know of a lot of them) that dictate how you do code changes. The only thing I can think of is your own company’s policies in relation to those regulations; in which case, you can change your own policies.
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#75I'm waiting for the day someone builds a wrapper around LLM chats and uses it as a storage medium. It's already been done for GitHub, YouTube videos and Minecraft.
For Minecraft did they just write text in a book item?
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#76"Who needs git when [..]" No matter how that sentence ends, I weep for our industry.
Reminds me of a colleague back in the day who would force push to main and just leave a "YOLO" comment in the commit.
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Commit even as a WIP before cleaning up! I don't really like polluting the commit history like that but with some interactive rebase it can be as if the WIP version never existed. (Side ask to people using Jujutsu: isn't it a use case where jujutsu shines?)
I always commit when wrapping up the day. I add [WIP] in the subject, and add "NOTE: This commit doesn't build" if it's in a very half-baked state.
same - my eod commits are always titled 'checkpoint commit: ' and push to remote. Then before the MR is made (or turned from draft to final) I squash the checkpoint commits - gives me a psychological feeling of safety more than anything else imo
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#78I would recommend the Code Supernova model in Cursor if you want a 1M token context window. It's free right now since the model is being tested in stealth, but your data will be used by XAI or whoever it turns out the model creator is.
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#79I cannot wrap my head around the anecdote that opens the article: > Lately I’ve heard a lot of stories of AI accidentally deleting entire codebases or wiping production databases. I simply... I cannot. Someone let a poorly understood AI connected to prod, and it ignored instructions, deleted the database, and tried to hide it. "I will never use this AI again", says this person, but I think he's not going far enough:…
99% agree, but: >(the human) should be banned from production systems as well. The human may have learnt the lesson... if not, I would still be banned ;)[0] [0] I did not delete a database, but cut power to the rack running the DB
I cut the power... but I did not drop the database.
Re: Who needs Git when you have 1M context windows?
#80I cannot wrap my head around the anecdote that opens the article: > Lately I’ve heard a lot of stories of AI accidentally deleting entire codebases or wiping production databases. I simply... I cannot. Someone let a poorly understood AI connected to prod, and it ignored instructions, deleted the database, and tried to hide it. "I will never use this AI again", says this person, but I think he's not going far enough:…
I mean everyone breaks prid at least once, ai is just one that doesn’t learnt from the mistake