Hey fellow programmers, I wanted to share a little experiment I’ve been
conducting lately that has significantly improved my workflow. I’ve started
using AI to generate my Git commit messages, and it’s been a game-changer! By
feeding all the changes I’ve made into a language model with a large context
window (LLM), the AI not only generates a concise commit title but also provides
bullet points describing each of the changes in precise detail. The level of
detail and informativeness it brings to my commit messages is incredible. I used
to spend a considerable amount of time crafting commit messages that accurately
captured the essence of the changes I made. Now, with the help of AI, I find
myself copy-pasting its generated messages most of the time. It’s not just a
time-saver; it also ensures that my commits are well-documented and easy to
understand for my team members. If you haven’t explored using AI for your Git
commits, I highly recommend giving it a try. It can significantly boost your
productivity and help you maintain clean and informative version control
history. Plus, it’s a fascinating intersection of AI and software development!
Have you experimented with similar AI-powered tools for your programming tasks?
I’d love to hear your experiences and any recommendations you might have. Let’s
discuss the future of AI in programming in the comments!
It writes more informative commits than I could ever make so I’m just reading what it says and mostly copy/pasting completely most of the time, I write all of the changes I’ve made into an LLM with a large context window and it write a very detailed commit not just with a title but with bullet points describing each of the changes precisely
Precision > concision && accuracy > concision. Just use your own wording as the 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.
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.
Im more in favour in writting “my” commit message myself and let LLMs refotmulate and make concise.
Precision > concision && accuracy > concision. Just use your own wording as the 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.
The problem is people are lazy and most places I’ve been, peoeple make bad commit messages and often very non informative.
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.