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

81–90 of 410 posts

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

#81

Post by sillysaurusx »

dang wrote: post #67
sillysaurusx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately Codex doesn’t seem to be able to export the entire session as markdown, otherwise I’d suggest encouraging people to include that in their Show HNs. It’s kind of nuts that it’s so difficult to export what’s now a part of the engineering process. I don’t have anything against vibe coded apps, but what makes them interesting is to see the vibe coding session and all the false starts along the way. You lear…

mthurman pointed me to https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2025/claude-code-mic... - is that what you have in mind?

Yeah! That’s great. Having those alongside vibe coded apps would make them way more interesting.

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

#83

Post by ahupp »

monster_truck wrote: post #55
aspenmartin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

post mortems / bug hunting -- pinpointing what part of the logic was to blame for a certain problem.

this is what granular commits are for, the kilobytes long log of claude running in circles over bullshit isn't going to help anyone

I think the parent comment is saying “why did the agent produce this big, and why wants it caught”, which is a separate problem from what granular commits solve, of finding the bug in the first place.

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

#84

Post by th0ma5 »

tempestn wrote: post #80
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…

Why does the regular voting system fail here? Are there just too many Show HNs for people to process the new ones, so the good ones get lost in the noise?

[dead]

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

#85

Post by dboreham »

I've thought about this, and I do save the sessions for educational purposes. But what I ended up doing is exactly what I ask developers to do: update the bug report with the analysis, plan, notes etc. In the case there's a single PR fixing one bug, GitHub and Claude tend to prefer this information go in the PR description. That's ok for me since it's one click from the bug.

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

#86

Post by crossroadsguy »

Goodness no! Sometimes I literally SHOUT at these agents/chats and often stoop down to using cuss words, which I am not proud of, but surprisingly it has shown to work here and there. As real as that is, I'd not want that on record in a commit.

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

#87

Post by charcircuit »

YoumuChan wrote: post #27

Should my google search history be part of the commit? To that question my answer is no.

And not all google searches you do while working on that commit may even be related to that commit. It may be entirely unrelated, or sensitive information that should not be made public.

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

#88

Post by esafak »

daemonk wrote: post #30

I did this in the beginning and realized I never went back to it. I think we have to learn to embrace the chaos. We can try to place a couple of anchors in the search space by having Claude summarize the code base every once in a while, but I am not sure if even that is necessary. The code it writes is git versioned and is probably enough to go on.

It is a great way to document your thinking. I think we should get in the habit of checking conversations in with git notes or something.

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

#89

Post by amarant »

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…

My current thinking is based on boris tanes[1] formalised method of coding with Claude code. I commit the research and plan.md files as they are when I finally tell Claude to implement changes in code. This becomes a living lexicon of the architecture and every feature added. A very slight variation I do from Boris's method is that I prefix all my research and plan .md filenames with the name of the feature. I can very quickly load relevant architecture into context by having Claude read a previous design document instead of analysing the whole code base. I'll take pieces I think are relevant and tell Claude to base research from those design documents.

[1] https://boristane.com/blog/how-i-use-claude-code/

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

#90

Post by otar »

In the ideal world a specification file should be committed to the repository and then linked to the PR/commit. But it slows you down and is no longer a vibe coding?

Soon only implementation details will matter. Code can be generated based on those specifications again and again.

Post reply on HN