3 ms·
Fair points :). The naming is 'evolutionary' — started as 'semantic diff' because it analyzes meaning not just lines, but 'commit review' is more accurate for w
by mvyshnyvetska 9mo ago
Fair points :). The naming is 'evolutionary' — started as 'semantic diff' because it analyzes meaning not just lines, but 'commit review' is more accurate for what it does now.
You're right about the redundancy — same issue appearing in 3 sections is noise. Adding output config (sections to include, verbosity level) is on the list.
The 'why was this deleted' questions — yeah, the tool can't answer, but surfacing the question for the reviewer has value. At least you know to ask the author.
Good callout on dependabot. Worth reconsidering.
Thanks for actually trying it and giving specific feedback.
- mvyshnyvetska 9mo agoUpdate: just shipped --brief flag. Thanks for the push!
- forgotpwd16 9mo ago>the tool can't answer, but surfacing the question for the reviewer has value That's true. Could even expand on this and make it have a --check-msg mode that returns 0/1 (good/bad) if commit messages lack the reasoning for the changes they're doing. Although, linting commit messages is last thing I want to do.
- mvyshnyvetska 9mo agoYeah, that's more process-tooling territory — keeping this dev-focused for now.