I use a different LLM family to review commits and write detailed descriptions. If a commit was written with Fable/Opus, I use Sol/Astra to write a well reasoned commit message. If the message doesn't match my intent, then that triggers a manual review.
This makes no sense to me. The code is already self-documenting if written well, and all you need is a one line commit message to summarize that.
Doesn't the original conversation at least retain the context about why the change was made? A different LLM literally has no way to tell why you made this change besides guessing from the codebase and git history.
If a change makes sense, a different frontier model can usually figure out why it was made from the code alone. I take that as a signal that that the commit is good.
I believe they can do this due to having millions of public pull requests and github issues in their training data.
There's pretty much always several plausible reasons for why a change was made. What's interesting is knowing exactly which one, especially when it later turns out to be wrong!
seunosewa · · focus · HN ↗
bigmadshoe · · focus · HN ↗
Doesn't the original conversation at least retain the context about why the change was made? A different LLM literally has no way to tell why you made this change besides guessing from the codebase and git history.
sigbottle · · focus · HN ↗
seunosewa · · focus · HN ↗
I believe they can do this due to having millions of public pull requests and github issues in their training data.
cerved · · focus · HN ↗
bigmadshoe · · focus · HN ↗
* business objectives,
* the result of experimentation,
* the result of an offline conversation
etc.
This cannot be captured in code alone. This is why we write commit messages.