7 ms·

I really don't like this. The code I write between commits is my thinking. I think by writing some code out, deleting it, writing again. The code I write that's

• fridder 4mo ago
  The collaboration part I’m skeptical of but I get it, as it sounds like a feature made for business consumers
  • sdesol 4mo ago
    This sounds like it is more aligned with what I have created which is "We need to capture your conversations with AI". If you look at https://github.com/gitsense/gsc-cli/blob/main/internal/cli/root.go https://github.com/gitsense/gsc-cli/blob/main/internal/cli/r... you can see that every file has a code block header with a UUID and the AI that was attributed to it. With the UUID, I can tell exactly how the code came about. What they are working on will be more useful for AI code provenance. It is only a matter of time before you are expected to show your chats with AI as part of the code review and for performance reviews. So I don't see human collaboration being the main use case. I see tracking, studying and improving the Human-AI relationship...and seeing if somebody should be promoted or not. An interesting take I've heard is, we will have a token/impact stat where if you spent a shitload of tokens to produce the same impact as somebody else who spent a lot less, you will be the prime candidate for layoffs and/or less pay. This is why I think AI code provenance will become a serious thing in the future.
    • jorl17 4mo ago
      FYI your link 404s. Seems like you copied the ellipsified version, so what we get is https://github.com/gitsense/gsc-cli/blob/main/internal/cli/r https://github.com/gitsense/gsc-cli/blob/main/internal/cli/r
      • sdesol 4mo ago
        Fixed, thanks!
    • selicos 4mo ago
      Audit purposes for sure. How was this code/concept generated, what were the prompts/requirements, what thinking did the model complete, can this be replicated or repeated, etc. A vendor conference I was at a few weeks ago focused heavily on this, for most of their Agentic workflow items. How can you show the AIs work, prove what it did was within guidelines, then audit the process and result. Like, if your system has an AI backed federated search for documents and you ask it a question about those documents, you need an audit trail of the ask, what documents were referenced, and what was returned to the user. Then if wrong information was supplied that can be pinned down and explained in case of lawsuit or other need.
• 0xb0565e486 4mo ago
  Aren't you paid to think?
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  • bauldursdev 4mo ago
    No I'm paid to write code.
    • NewJazz 4mo ago
      Does that... Not imply thinking avout what you are writing???
      • oriolid 4mo ago
        Everyone probably has thought "what was the person thinking when they wrote this". Now you know that they probably didn't think (and since 2025 or so, it might not even have been a person).
    • malyk 4mo ago
      No, you are paid to provide solutions for your customers.
    • muadddib 4mo ago
      and you can do that without thinking?
  • sieabahlpark 4mo ago
    [dead]
  • NewJazz 4mo ago
    A woodworker is paid to work with wood. But the finished product is the worked wood, not a detailed summary of how the wood was worked with.
  • pdimitar 4mo ago
• gmueckl 4mo ago
  Don't be afraid to show your thoughts when asked to. The best developers are those that can express their thoughts clearly at any stage throughout their process. This is one of the skills that shows to me the level of experience a developer has.
  • InfinityByTen 4mo ago
    One of my professors in undergrad said: the most dangerous mathematicians are the ones that begin the proof with "Consider a case ...". He said that these mathematicians are the ones who don't share anything about how they got the case and they end up projecting this sort of "magician aura". I don't know how accurate that assessment it, but I think it captures something that never sat well with me. In my life, I've never liked people who deliberately polish up their articulation to the level that it obfuscates how they arrived at that understanding (whether it's academics or engineers). They might not do it for attention and they might not be doing it knowingly. IMO, they are taking away the opportunity of learning from the people they are talking to. For me the conversation is one sided. I'm there to listen, but rarely can I ask questions, give feedback or grow from where they have possibly reached.
    • ozim 4mo ago
      Ugh, let's take a step back and make a distinction: I don't need your fluff. No one cares how you arrived writing another crud line to save an object to database or sent yet another AJAX call. If you wrote some genuine great compression algorithm that's a different take on compression, I would like to see step by step reasoning and eventual dead ends.
      • InfinityByTen 4mo ago
        I shared my thoughts in the context of someone saying that one should be able to share your line of thinking when asked to. Whether "when one asked to" applies to keystroke by keystroke blockhained versioning isn't my point of discussion. I get it, that the overall discussion is about DeltaDB. I'd say interesting concept to toy with. I'd pay more attention to "micro commits" as the idea more than the keylogger.
• jcgrillo 4mo ago
  Fully agree, very icky surveillance vibes. In particular: > DeltaDB breaks your work into a stream of fine-grained deltas. Where Git captures a snapshot at each commit, DeltaDB captures every operation in between and gives each one a stable identity. I was curious about giving Zed a try, now that it has an emacs keymap. Not anymore. This is such a horribly invasive feature, I absolutely do not want my colleagues reviewing every single intermediate edit, down to the keystroke, that went into the commits I publish for review. Before I put a PR up for review, I'll sometimes edit my commit history a little bit in magit to make it more linear and digestible--maybe update descriptions, squash some adjacent commits together, etc. This just throws that whole aspect of the job out the window and says "hey, colleague, hoover up this firehose of deltas and enjoy it". And what the hell does this even mean? > What we're really after is simple: the conversation with the agent becomes the only conversation you need to have. Lmao. No. Wrong.
  • fridder 4mo ago
    The more I think about it and your comment the more I wish it was local only. It could be useful to analyze your editing habits and interactions with AI but I want that for my own benefit not random coworkers
    • slackpad 4mo ago
      Yeah I really would not want all my convos synced up like this. I've been working on a personal version of something like this but it keeps all your conversations and notes in a separate Git repo that you control that's totally separate from the project repo - it's entirely designed for personal use: https://github.com/modulecollective/moe https://github.com/modulecollective/moe
    • jcgrillo 4mo ago
      I would probably only use these data if I had some script I could run in it for analysis, and even then optimizing my AI chats is probably pretty low value.. certainly not enough to justify the cost of analysis, unless there's something that provides actionable insights with almost zero time investment. Producing code edits itself is such a small fraction of the job I'm really not convinced these are valuable data. Mostly the effort and time goes into reading and understanding code, not producing or transforming it.
• hinkley 4mo ago
  This is why I use rebase before PRs, and despise squash. You are not going to remember why you wrote that code that way 2 years from now and all we'll have to understand bugs and identify Chesterton's Fence situations is the deltas and the commit history. If you squash them I have 400 lines of code you 'wrote' all at the same time and only have the feature request it was assigned to as context. Thanks for nothing. The worst actor would write a new module and check nothing in until it kinda worked. I think it went along with the fragile ego that had people sneaking around fixing bugs in his code without talking to him about it first. He wrote convoluted code that exhibited Kernighan's law and he was about 10 years too senior to still be doing that shit. He bragged about how 'powerful' his code was as if that was a compliment instead of a harbinger. Many times I found bugs in code from the initial commit. Just... give me something man. Anything. Fuck. Just because you tried random shit until you found the problem doesn't mean you have to fess up to it. You can tell any story you want that gets us from point A to point B now that you know point B is attainable. You can rearrange the commits the way you would have written it if you knew exactly what needed to be done. Drop 90% of the code you wrote and immediately deleted again, anything that doesn't support that narrative. In law enforcement you have something called Parallel Construction. You can know a suspect is guilty by knowing facts that are not admissible in court. So you need to rediscover those same facts by the book. Grab his trash on trash day. Interview neighbors. Get enough circumstantial evidence to get a search warrant, then go find that evidence again.
  • giraffe_lady 4mo ago
    Probably coulda used an example that isn't itself a fourth amendment violation that essentially requires perjury to accomplish. Also less euphemistically called evidence laundering. Not really a neutral example.
    • bonzini 4mo ago
      A more charitable case is that the source cannot be disclosed because it's an undercover agent or informant. What the parent describes is indeed evidence laundering.
• subygan 4mo ago
  This was my problem with JJ as well. I don't want everything in between to be versioned. I'm not even sure, every intermediary state between a commit is relevant or useful. but feels like, I'm in the minority.
  • steveklabnik 4mo ago
    To be clear, while jj does that, it's entirely local on your machine, and not shared.
    • subygan 4mo ago
      Even on my local, that level of snapshotting adds unneded complexity that has very little value.
      • soulbadguy 4mo ago
        Additional complexity ? jj just increase the frequency of snapshots. it does not fundamentality the complexity of the system
        • skydhash 4mo ago
          The one thing I do like about git’s staging area is that it’s truly useful for reviewing a bunch of changes (bulk actions or automated tools). Go over the change chunk by chunk and stage what matters (magit makes that extremely quick. That could be probably done by jj. But the git’s way is already fine for me.
          • steveklabnik 4mo ago
            Yes, jj does make this very nice and easy. It’s the same idea as git, except that “the index” is just another anonymous change, not a distinct feature.
      • steveklabnik 4mo ago
        Value is of course subjective, but many of jj’s popular features, like undo, are based on this. (I actually think it’s tremendously valuable for a number of reasons but it’s fine to simply disagree about that.)
• bmitc 4mo ago
  Yea, commits that go into a PR are generally just a sequence of logs and not necessarily a sequential stream of explicit steps.
• lwyrup 4mo ago
  I think they’re mostly considering AI agents. It’s an interesting idea (that I’ve seen before). Everyone trying to reinvent for AI which is fun! But I am skeptical because just create a text file and put a reference to the commit. Also, why not just use Fossil? It already lets you bundle whatever in there since it’s an SQLite database. It has all kinds of things built in that can reference commits.