It's funny, i push back on pull requests because there is too much description now - a 20 line change has pages and pages of generated description, rationalisation for why it is safe, defense of each design decision, analysis of risks and side effects. People are indignant, you're rejecting my change because there is too much documentation? And my response is, I don't have time to read it and you put me in the position where I can't afford not to - because approving the PR implies I did and accepted it. The investment to read all that for the value of a code change that I'm one prompt away from doing myself if I cared is just not high enough. So it's rejected.
Same problem with postmortems. You get a clean AI writeup with root cause, timeline, and action items all in the right sections, but none of it tells you what was actually checked or ruled out along the way. Reads like it explains the incident, but you can't tell if the fix was ever tested or just sounds plausible.
zmmmmm · · focus · HN ↗
marcus9999 · · focus · HN ↗