Of course he knows why he made the changes. He made them. But computers are much faster as typing and with a sophisticated enough LLM you can offload some gruntwork. I'd argue if you're not utilizing all the tools at your disposal, you're not performing like you should.
Comment on I've lately been making my git commit messages with AI
DmMacniel@feddit.de 7 months ago
Why don’t you know WHY you did something to the codebase that you now want to commit?
wagesj45@kbin.social 7 months ago
DmMacniel@feddit.de 7 months ago
we are talking about programmers/software developers. Speed typing is in our nature. If you can’t type 50 characters faster than writing the prompt to get the LLM to spat out a commit meesage, then I will question your competence.
Also the opposite is true, when the Boss realise that major parts or grunt work as you say can be automated by utilising LLM, then they would be inclined to employ that and reduce your wage. Because do you really deserve 6 figures when a computer can do the grunt work for their expensive human resources?
PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Im more in favour in writting “my” commit message myself and let LLMs refotmulate and make concise.
TootSweet@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Precision > concision && accuracy > concision. Just use your commit message. I’d rather see an account of a code change from the viewpoint of the change’s author than a shorter reformulation, even if that reformulation did come from a human who knew the problem space and wasn’t prone to making shit up on the fly.
balder1993@programming.dev 7 months ago
The problem is people are lazy and most places I’ve been, propele make bad commit messages and often very non informative.
TootSweet@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’d rather see no commit message than an AI-generated one.
Also if I wasn’t misinterpreting OP, it sounded from the post I was responding to like OP provided a summary to the LLM along with code. If OP’s writing a summary anyway, why not just proofread that and use that as the commit message rather than involving an LLM in the middle of the process?
Even in a hypothetical where the company hired human tech writers to write commit messages for developers, I’d rather have in the commit message what the developer had to say rather than the possible misinterpretation of the tech writer.