Post #1953535

2026-03-27 18:24 UTC

@cas At some level I agree re AI generated commit messages. At another I've had to deal with so many "some small fixes" commits that I'd almost rather have the slop machine give something at least somewhat relevant to what the "small fixes" were.

Replies (3)

@erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net 2026-03-27 18:27

@cadey @cas I feel like a lot of these things would be fine in a sort of overlay mode. If I could fold out the summary when the message someone else has written is bad, or if I could have its review comments while I’m going through the code, that would be somewhat neat. But writing the commit message or posting actual review comments? Its just all bad vibes.

Open ##1953536
@samueldr@ap.samueldr.com 2026-03-27 19:11

@cadey @cas I'd rather have --allow-empty-message than not being able to trust commit messages being accurate. And yes, they may already not be. But when they're not, they were at least a human-made mistake. And why the fuck should the generated commit message be baked into the commit? Why not let generation happen on-demand such that when the models improve, the message improves?

Open ##1953537
@dalias@hachyderm.io 2026-03-27 19:29

@cadey @cas Illusion of a meaningful commit description is worse than no description. It loses one very important bit of information: whether the commit is undocumented.

Open ##1953542