3 ms·

I don't agree. Who/what wrote the commit is definitely part of the commit. If Git commits formally had a co-authored header, it would go there. As it stands, t

I don't agree. Who/what wrote the commit is definitely part of the commit. If Git commits formally had a co-authored header, it would go there. As it stands, there is one author and one committer. If something was pair programmed, whether with a human or machine, you need a commit message trailer if you want to show that. Commit message trailers are a formal mechanism in git, supported by tooling; there are git commands to add and remove them. Totally agree about "sent from my fartphone", of course. Disclosing things in the pull request is not enough; pull requests get lost in the sands of time. Years down the road, all that some downstream consumer has is the git history, not any CI-related metadata.

zuzululu 5mo ago
but its like writing I "co authored it with vscode/eclipse/sublime/vim" its not super relevant or needed like the original article lays out
- dylan604 5mo ago
  How do you come to this equivalency? None of the tools you used generated code. They are just the tool you used to write the code. LLM tools actually generate code that you copy&paste into one of your said tools. They are not anywhere close to the same, and I'm hoping you are aware of this and are just playing a stooge on the internet
  - zuzululu 5mo ago
    How did you come up with that mental gymnastics? You cannot tell if somebody used what tool to write their code if they don't tell you. This is getting weird.
    - dylan604 5mo ago
      which is the point to say which specific LLM was used to create the code. i'm not sure how we're talking past each other at this point
      - zuzululu 5mo ago
        so if you can't tell then why would it even matter to know the difference?
  - sdevonoes 5mo ago
    Coauthored by protoc?