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.
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 ↗