6 ms·

You still have things like git squash etc.

by sebazzz 6mo ago

bitbasher 6mo ago
That doesn't make any sense. There's 10,000+ lines of code. There shouldn't be a single commit "Initial commit". I'm fine with squashing some commits and creating a clean history, but this isn't a clean history it's obfuscated.
- tosti 6mo ago
  I also do this. Lots of weird commit messages because fuck that, I'm busy. Commits that are just there to put some stuff aside, things like that. I don't owe it to anyone to show how messy my kitchen is.
  - Bootvis 6mo ago
    On the other hand, others don’t have to adopt, use or like your stuff which would be the reasons to publish it. One big commit definitely doesn’t help with creating confidence in this project.
  - bitbasher 6mo ago
    > I don't owe it to anyone to show how messy my kitchen is. There was once a time when sharing code had a social obligation. This attitude you have isn't in the same spirit. GitHub (or any forge) was never meant to be a garbage dumping ground for whatever idea you cooked up at 3AM.
    - tosti 6mo ago
      It requires self-discipline to stay organized. A vcs is just a tool. I'm never organized, my brain just works that way. Whatever the tool, I'll create a mess with it. So as long as the project structure and its code is all good I can't care about anything else.
    - greenavocado 6mo ago
      Explain why you think making a single commit is related to any source code sharing obligation? You completely failed to establish why making a single commit is indicative of it being garbage. Your statements are a series of non-sequiturs so far and thus I can't take you seriously.
      - bitbasher 6mo ago
        > Explain why you think making a single commit is related to any source code sharing obligation? When you share code it's presumably for people to use. It is often useful to have commit history to establish a few things (trust in the author, see their thought process, debug issues, figure out how to use things, etc). > You completely failed to establish why making a single commit is indicative of it being garbage. A single commit doesn't mean it's garbage. It erodes trust in the author and the project. It makes it hard for me to use the code, which is presumably why you share code. My garbage code response was in regards to the growing trend to code (usually with ai) some idea, slap an initial commit on it and throw it on GitHub (like using a napkin and tossing it in the rubbish bin).
        salawat 6mo ago
        Here's the thing, get used to single big commits. Eventually, somebody is going to try to train on specific change sets. This'll enable models to learn specific authors mannerisms, idiosyncracies etc... Single large commits creates an info asymmetry boundary, which is about the only defense a creator has in a world of willful infringement to train algorithms to replace or devalue them in the market. It sucks... But this is the world we're growing into now.
    - fatty_patty89 6mo ago
      that world never existed
    - kstrauser 6mo ago
      Never happened. My projects start with me goofing around and playing with things, accidentally committing my editor config or a logfile, etc. The first commit on my public release is a snapshot of the first working version, minus all the dumb typos and malcommits I made along the way. I don’t owe it to anyone to show how the sausage was made. Once it’s out the door and public, things are different. But before then? No one was the moral right to see all my mistakes leading up to the first release.
  - paroneayea 6mo ago
    Does your makefile also do this https://github.com/xtellect/spaces/blob/422dbba85b5a7e9a209aaab2e9ac19c892528d39/Makefile#L16 https://github.com/xtellect/spaces/blob/422dbba85b5a7e9a209a... This repo is full of so many strange and hilarious things. Look, I'm a lisper, and this is even too many parentheses for me https://github.com/xtellect/spaces/blob/master/spaces.c#L4713 https://github.com/xtellect/spaces/blob/master/spaces.c#L471...
- drob518 6mo ago
  It may have been released with a new repo created, losing all the previously-private history.
  - bitbasher 6mo ago
    Yes and no. Have you looked at the code? It was clearly generated in one form or another (see the other comments). The author created a new GitHub account and this is their first repository. It looks to be generated from another code base as a sorta amalgamation (either through code generation, ai, or another means). We're supposed to implicitly trust this person (new GitHub account, first repository, no commit history, 10k+ lines of complicated code). Jia Tan worked way too hard, all they had to do was upload a few files and share on HN :)
    - throwaway27448 6mo ago
      > We're supposed to implicitly trust this person That would be rather foolish even with a fully viewable history. I don't understand why you're so worked up about this—nobody is forcing you to use the code.
      - convolvatron 6mo ago
        I think there are 3 levels at play here. One is code as curation, a model I'm not particularly interested in. Clearly the publisher, despite not being paid, is a supplicant. and as a curator I'm as much or more interested the in process being used and the longetivity of the code base. The second is code as artifact. Is this code useful, performant, with a reasonable API. The third is code as concept, or architecture. This is really what interests me here. I use explicit allocators any time I can get away with it, and it's an excellent tool for involved systems projects. I'm not really interested in using this code, but having implemented these things many times, looking at how other people made the various tradeoffs, how it all came together, is really valuable input for when I'm going to do this again. Maybe there are some really brand new ideas here. While I'm unsympathetic to the first perspective, it's valid. But I don't think its fair to castigate someone who put something on GitHub for not meeting someones adoption criteria.
- johnisgood 6mo ago
  I have done "Initial commit"s after having almost finished something. Sometimes fter >10k lines. Totally unrelated to LLMs, as I have done it years ago as well, and has nothing to do with LLMs. I see why you would think what you do though, but it does not logically follow.
- tidwall 6mo ago
  I do this all the time. I’ll spend weeks or months on a project, with thousands of wip commits and various fragmented branches. When ready, I’ll squash it all into a single initial commit for public consumption.

You still have things like git squash etc.

by sebazzz 6mo ago

You still have things like git squash etc.

That doesn't make any sense. There's 10,000+ lines of code. There shouldn't be a single commit "Initial commit". I'm fine with squashing some commits and creating a clean history, but this isn't a clean history it's obfuscated.

tosti 6mo ago
I also do this. Lots of weird commit messages because fuck that, I'm busy. Commits that are just there to put some stuff aside, things like that. I don't owe it to anyone to show how messy my kitchen is.
- Bootvis 6mo ago
  On the other hand, others don’t have to adopt, use or like your stuff which would be the reasons to publish it. One big commit definitely doesn’t help with creating confidence in this project.
- bitbasher 6mo ago
  > I don't owe it to anyone to show how messy my kitchen is. There was once a time when sharing code had a social obligation. This attitude you have isn't in the same spirit. GitHub (or any forge) was never meant to be a garbage dumping ground for whatever idea you cooked up at 3AM.
  - tosti 6mo ago
    It requires self-discipline to stay organized. A vcs is just a tool. I'm never organized, my brain just works that way. Whatever the tool, I'll create a mess with it. So as long as the project structure and its code is all good I can't care about anything else.
  - greenavocado 6mo ago
    Explain why you think making a single commit is related to any source code sharing obligation? You completely failed to establish why making a single commit is indicative of it being garbage. Your statements are a series of non-sequiturs so far and thus I can't take you seriously.
    - bitbasher 6mo ago
      > Explain why you think making a single commit is related to any source code sharing obligation? When you share code it's presumably for people to use. It is often useful to have commit history to establish a few things (trust in the author, see their thought process, debug issues, figure out how to use things, etc). > You completely failed to establish why making a single commit is indicative of it being garbage. A single commit doesn't mean it's garbage. It erodes trust in the author and the project. It makes it hard for me to use the code, which is presumably why you share code. My garbage code response was in regards to the growing trend to code (usually with ai) some idea, slap an initial commit on it and throw it on GitHub (like using a napkin and tossing it in the rubbish bin).
      - salawat 6mo ago
        Here's the thing, get used to single big commits. Eventually, somebody is going to try to train on specific change sets. This'll enable models to learn specific authors mannerisms, idiosyncracies etc... Single large commits creates an info asymmetry boundary, which is about the only defense a creator has in a world of willful infringement to train algorithms to replace or devalue them in the market. It sucks... But this is the world we're growing into now.
  - fatty_patty89 6mo ago
    that world never existed
  - kstrauser 6mo ago
    Never happened. My projects start with me goofing around and playing with things, accidentally committing my editor config or a logfile, etc. The first commit on my public release is a snapshot of the first working version, minus all the dumb typos and malcommits I made along the way. I don’t owe it to anyone to show how the sausage was made. Once it’s out the door and public, things are different. But before then? No one was the moral right to see all my mistakes leading up to the first release.
- paroneayea 6mo ago
  Does your makefile also do this https://github.com/xtellect/spaces/blob/422dbba85b5a7e9a209aaab2e9ac19c892528d39/Makefile#L16 https://github.com/xtellect/spaces/blob/422dbba85b5a7e9a209a... This repo is full of so many strange and hilarious things. Look, I'm a lisper, and this is even too many parentheses for me https://github.com/xtellect/spaces/blob/master/spaces.c#L4713 https://github.com/xtellect/spaces/blob/master/spaces.c#L471...
drob518 6mo ago
It may have been released with a new repo created, losing all the previously-private history.
- bitbasher 6mo ago
  Yes and no. Have you looked at the code? It was clearly generated in one form or another (see the other comments). The author created a new GitHub account and this is their first repository. It looks to be generated from another code base as a sorta amalgamation (either through code generation, ai, or another means). We're supposed to implicitly trust this person (new GitHub account, first repository, no commit history, 10k+ lines of complicated code). Jia Tan worked way too hard, all they had to do was upload a few files and share on HN :)
  - throwaway27448 6mo ago
    > We're supposed to implicitly trust this person That would be rather foolish even with a fully viewable history. I don't understand why you're so worked up about this—nobody is forcing you to use the code.
    - convolvatron 6mo ago
      I think there are 3 levels at play here. One is code as curation, a model I'm not particularly interested in. Clearly the publisher, despite not being paid, is a supplicant. and as a curator I'm as much or more interested the in process being used and the longetivity of the code base. The second is code as artifact. Is this code useful, performant, with a reasonable API. The third is code as concept, or architecture. This is really what interests me here. I use explicit allocators any time I can get away with it, and it's an excellent tool for involved systems projects. I'm not really interested in using this code, but having implemented these things many times, looking at how other people made the various tradeoffs, how it all came together, is really valuable input for when I'm going to do this again. Maybe there are some really brand new ideas here. While I'm unsympathetic to the first perspective, it's valid. But I don't think its fair to castigate someone who put something on GitHub for not meeting someones adoption criteria.
johnisgood 6mo ago
I have done "Initial commit"s after having almost finished something. Sometimes fter >10k lines. Totally unrelated to LLMs, as I have done it years ago as well, and has nothing to do with LLMs. I see why you would think what you do though, but it does not logically follow.
tidwall 6mo ago
I do this all the time. I’ll spend weeks or months on a project, with thousands of wip commits and various fragmented branches. When ready, I’ll squash it all into a single initial commit for public consumption.