3 ms·
Hi, author here. Yes, I agree and that's precisely what I wrote in the post: > A few years ago I’d never have added Google or StackOverflow as co-authors. But
by dhanush 1mo ago
Hi, author here. Yes, I agree and that's precisely what I wrote in the post:
> A few years ago I’d never have added Google or StackOverflow as co-authors. But I would have added a link to post that helped and I’ll continue to do so now.
- gruez 1mo agoRight, but how would that work with claude? Do you just add "written by claude" in the commit message? Add "written by claude" in the file header (like a copyright notice)? If you're doing either, is there really any difference between that and the standard "co-authored-by: claude" trailer? Is the whole debate over what "co-authored" means and/or how it shows up on github?
- dhanush 1mo agoYeah, my thought here is more towards what co-authored should mean and what ownership it implies. I think presence of an AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md is a good signal that I'm using this tool for this project and maybe don't need to repeat it for every commit that I make. My personal feeling so far is, seeing claude code as co-author in my commits inevitably makes me not pay as much attention to the commit. And removing that forces me to really recognize that, hey this is my work. And I'd better make sure this is of the same quality that I would do otherwise. Kind of like a psychological hack maybe? But it seems to work better. Overall, this is just a series of steps I'm taking to maintain my agency in my work.
- hervem 1mo agoNever saw this in my experience even not sure it is legal in a license way. Why not following the typical comment with the source URL and author's mention + adding license / header in the third-parties file/folder?