3 ms·
I have had some success with asking the LLM to rewrite the commit history after the feature was written. I often have a good idea of a good conceptual split, an
by ulrikrasmussen 2mo ago
I have had some success with asking the LLM to rewrite the commit history after the feature was written. I often have a good idea of a good conceptual split, and the LLM has no problem doing the soul-crushing work of manually pulling out individual files or hunks into a sequence of commits and making sure each builds.
I need to do this before I can even review the code myself, and I review everything before I send it to my colleagues for their review.
- ldng 2mo agoBut the thin is that de dev don't review the generated code ... because, surely, that's the reviewer's job ... right ? /s
- hbogert 2mo agothe even more soul crushing thing is to get the agent/claude to think in this atomic commits kind of thing. It just doesn't. At least opus doesn't IME. can you force it to do it after the fact, sure, still soul crushing to nudge it that way. Also it F's up branch-on-branch development style. I had to tell claude to use `git rebase --rebase-merges --update-branches`, add skills or memories you want, the hit ratio is abysmal. I have this issue more often, if you want Claude to get off the beaten path, because you reallllly know a better way, memories just don't hit. In this case the agent instructions on how to get along with git is just too burnt into the agent it seems.