3 ms·
I tend to have auto-accept on for edits, and once Claude is done with a task I'll just use git to review and stage the changes, sometimes commit them when it's
by emilecantin 1y ago
I tend to have auto-accept on for edits, and once Claude is done with a task I'll just use git to review and stage the changes, sometimes commit them when it's a logical spot for it.
I wouldn't want to have Claude auto-commit everything it does (because I sometimes revert its changes), nor would I want to YOLO it without any git repo... This seems like a nice tool, but for someone who has a very different workflow.
- punnerud 1y ago"Checkpoints for Claude Code" use git under the hood, but stored in .claudecheckpoints folder, to not mess with your own git. Add itself to .gitignore. It auto commits with a git message for the changes done through MCP locally.
- michaelmior 1y agoAs someone who doesn't use CC, auto-commit seems like it would be the easiest way to manage changes. It's easy enough to revert or edit a commit if I don't like what happened.
- emilecantin 1y agoIt's also very easy to throw away unstaged changes, and to stage exactly what you want. I treat the staging process ("git add") as a code review.
- fastball 1y agoIt's also very easy to throw away actual commits, as long as you don't push them (and even then not so difficult if you're in a context where force-pushing is tolerable).
- emilecantin 1y agoTrue, but it's harder to reject changes in one file, make a quick fix, etc. I like to keep control over my git repo as it's a very useful tool for supervising the AI.
- adastra22 1y agoDo you not use git bisect?
- noodlescb 1y agoYeah I basically have Claude commit via git regularly and the majority of the other features described her can be done via git. I agree it's a neat idea for someone though.