5 ms·

I much prefer this over those AI generated commit messages that just say "refactored X" every single commit.

rkomorn 1y ago
So AI really does learn from humans...
spullara 1y ago
what kind of AI are you using that generates shitty commit messages? This a common kind of message from Claude / Augment: Fix dynamic channel list by passing auth via metadata - Pass userId and userEmail in metadata when calling HTTP transport - AuthenticatedToolsProviderFactory now reads from context.metadata - Each tools/list request creates a fresh ToolsProvider with authentication - Execute command description now correctly shows currently online machines - Tested locally and working correctly
- xnorswap 1y ago
  > - Tested locally and working correctly This is completely meaningless and just pollutes the log.
  - lambdaone 1y ago
    "ready for production", "fully working" and other Claude-isms come to mind
    - withinboredom 1y ago
      You're totally right!
  - joegibbs 1y ago
    God I can't stand it when I get this kind of output from Claude, they really need to train it out for Claude 5. "[Tangentially related emoji] I have completed this fully functional addition to the project that is now working perfectly! There are now zero bugs and the system is ready for deployment to production! [Rocketship emoji]" Then of course you test it out and it doesn't work at all! It's very grating. It would be more bearable if it hedged its claims a bit more (maybe that will negatively affect the quality of the results though - if training a model to output insecure code also makes it a murderous Hitler admirer then, since when humans hedge their output is less likely to be perfect, it may mean it pushes the model to output code that is less than perfect).
    - sheepscreek 1y ago
      > "[Tangentially related emoji] I have completed this fully functional addition to the project that is now working perfectly! There are now zero bugs and the system is ready for deployment to production! [Rocketship emoji]" This made me laugh so hard. Never trust an AI model saying “There are now zero bugs”! Weaponized incompetence? :) As a side note, I absolutely am in love with GPT-5 and GPT-5-codex. When I talk to it, it feels like talking to a peer and not an over enthusiastic (but talented) junior with potential. GPT-5-codex on high has been exceptional at debugging insidious bugs.
  - cratermoon 1y ago
    And there's at least an 80% chance one of those items is, in fact, not in the commit.
- RestartKernel 1y ago
  GitHub Copilot for one, and I'm pretty sure JetBrains' offering does the same.
  - spullara 1y ago
    JetBrains does a good job on them as well. Copilot is shit.
- lloydatkinson 1y ago
  Every time I’ve tried to use AI for commit messages its designers couldn’t be bothered to get it to take into account previous commit messages. I use conventional commit formats for a reason, and the AI can’t even attempt it. I’m not even sure I’d trust it to get the right designation, like “fix(foo)!: increase container size”.
- WildGreenLeave 1y ago
  It is missing the (to me) most important part. The reason why these changes are made.
  - stpedgwdgfhgdd 1y ago
    True, you need to instruct the AI agents to include this. In our case the agent has access to Jira and has wider knowledge. For commit messages i don’t bother that much anymore (i realise typing this), but for the MRs I do. Here i have to instruct it to remove implementation details.
    - DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
      > you need to instruct the AI agents to include this. The agent can't do that if you told Claudepilotemini directly to make some change without telling it why you were prompting it to make such a change. LLMs might appear magic, but they aren't (yet) psychic.
      - ffsm8 1y ago
        I think you're missing context. He's saying that he likely has an MCP connected to jira on the LLM he's developing with. Hence the prompt will have already referenced the jira ticket, which will include the why - and if not, you've got a different issue. Now the LLM will only need something like "before committing, check the jira ticket we're working on and create a commit message ... But whether you actually want that is a different story. You're off the opinion it's useful, I'd say it's rarely doing to be valuable, because requirements change, making this point in time rational mostly interesting in an academic sense, but not actually valuable for the development you're doing It depends on a ton of factors, and at least I'd put very little stock in the validity of the commit message that it might as well not exist. (And this is from the perspective of human written ones, not AI)
  - jjcob 1y ago
    I hate it when I look at some code, wondering why I added a refresh call at that point, I do a git blame to find the commit message, and it says "add refresh call".
- dspillett 1y ago
  > - Tested locally and working correctly If a human puts that, I doubt it. If I know they are using “AI” to fill in commit message I'll just assume it is a complete hallucination.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

So AI really does learn from humans...

what kind of AI are you using that generates shitty commit messages? This a common kind of message from Claude / Augment: Fix dynamic channel list by passing auth via metadata - Pass userId and userEmail in metadata when calling HTTP transport - AuthenticatedToolsProviderFactory now reads from context.metadata - Each tools/list request creates a fresh ToolsProvider with authentication - Execute command description now correctly shows currently online machines - Tested locally and working correctly

xnorswap 1y ago
> - Tested locally and working correctly This is completely meaningless and just pollutes the log.
- lambdaone 1y ago
  "ready for production", "fully working" and other Claude-isms come to mind
  - withinboredom 1y ago
    You're totally right!
- joegibbs 1y ago
  God I can't stand it when I get this kind of output from Claude, they really need to train it out for Claude 5. "[Tangentially related emoji] I have completed this fully functional addition to the project that is now working perfectly! There are now zero bugs and the system is ready for deployment to production! [Rocketship emoji]" Then of course you test it out and it doesn't work at all! It's very grating. It would be more bearable if it hedged its claims a bit more (maybe that will negatively affect the quality of the results though - if training a model to output insecure code also makes it a murderous Hitler admirer then, since when humans hedge their output is less likely to be perfect, it may mean it pushes the model to output code that is less than perfect).
  - sheepscreek 1y ago
    > "[Tangentially related emoji] I have completed this fully functional addition to the project that is now working perfectly! There are now zero bugs and the system is ready for deployment to production! [Rocketship emoji]" This made me laugh so hard. Never trust an AI model saying “There are now zero bugs”! Weaponized incompetence? :) As a side note, I absolutely am in love with GPT-5 and GPT-5-codex. When I talk to it, it feels like talking to a peer and not an over enthusiastic (but talented) junior with potential. GPT-5-codex on high has been exceptional at debugging insidious bugs.
- cratermoon 1y ago
  And there's at least an 80% chance one of those items is, in fact, not in the commit.
RestartKernel 1y ago
GitHub Copilot for one, and I'm pretty sure JetBrains' offering does the same.
- spullara 1y ago
  JetBrains does a good job on them as well. Copilot is shit.
lloydatkinson 1y ago
Every time I’ve tried to use AI for commit messages its designers couldn’t be bothered to get it to take into account previous commit messages. I use conventional commit formats for a reason, and the AI can’t even attempt it. I’m not even sure I’d trust it to get the right designation, like “fix(foo)!: increase container size”.
WildGreenLeave 1y ago
It is missing the (to me) most important part. The reason why these changes are made.
- stpedgwdgfhgdd 1y ago
  True, you need to instruct the AI agents to include this. In our case the agent has access to Jira and has wider knowledge. For commit messages i don’t bother that much anymore (i realise typing this), but for the MRs I do. Here i have to instruct it to remove implementation details.
  - DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
    > you need to instruct the AI agents to include this. The agent can't do that if you told Claudepilotemini directly to make some change without telling it why you were prompting it to make such a change. LLMs might appear magic, but they aren't (yet) psychic.
    - ffsm8 1y ago
      I think you're missing context. He's saying that he likely has an MCP connected to jira on the LLM he's developing with. Hence the prompt will have already referenced the jira ticket, which will include the why - and if not, you've got a different issue. Now the LLM will only need something like "before committing, check the jira ticket we're working on and create a commit message ... But whether you actually want that is a different story. You're off the opinion it's useful, I'd say it's rarely doing to be valuable, because requirements change, making this point in time rational mostly interesting in an academic sense, but not actually valuable for the development you're doing It depends on a ton of factors, and at least I'd put very little stock in the validity of the commit message that it might as well not exist. (And this is from the perspective of human written ones, not AI)
- jjcob 1y ago
  I hate it when I look at some code, wondering why I added a refresh call at that point, I do a git blame to find the commit message, and it says "add refresh call".
dspillett 1y ago
> - Tested locally and working correctly If a human puts that, I doubt it. If I know they are using “AI” to fill in commit message I'll just assume it is a complete hallucination.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]