If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
1–10 of 410 posts
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#2I’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.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#3I’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.
A better solution would be to read and understand the code before committing it.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#4I’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.
A better solution would be to read and understand the code before committing it.
People won’t do that, unfortunately. We are a dying breed (I hate it). I went against my own instincts and vibe code this, works as a proof of concept.
You can see the session (including my typos) and compare what was asked for and what you got.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#5One of the use cases i see for this tool is helping companies to understand the output coming from the llm blackbox and the process which the employee took to complete a certain task
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#6Maybe Git isn't the right tool to track the sessions. Some kind of new Semi-Human Intelligence Tracking tool. It will need a clever and shorter name though.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#7YES! The session becomes the source code.
Back in the dark ages, you'd "cc -s hello.c" to check the assembler source. With time we stopped doing that and hello.c became the originating artefact. On the same basis the session becomes the originating artefact.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#8[deleted]
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#9Maybe Git isn't the right tool to track the sessions. Some kind of new Semi-Human Intelligence Tracking tool. It will need a clever and shorter name though.
I don't think git is the right tool for much of modern software, where things like blobs aren't even properly supported.
Re: If AI writes code, should the session be part of the commit?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better solution would be to read and understand the code before committing it.
People won’t do that, unfortunately. We are a dying breed (I hate it). I went against my own instincts and vibe code this, works as a proof of concept. You can see the session (including my typos) and compare what was asked for and what you got.
Your starting point is that people won’t read code, and you expect them to read someone’s llm session from git?