[HN Gopher] Gptcommit: Never write a commit message again (with ...
___________________________________________________________________
Gptcommit: Never write a commit message again (with the help of
GPT-3)
Author : zurawiki
Score : 37 points
Date : 2023-01-19 20:08 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (zura.wiki)
(TXT) w3m dump (zura.wiki)
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I can kind of understand getting help writing the description of
| a large PR. But a commit message? Whose commits are so long so
| often that they need the help of an AI assistant to come up with
| the contents?
| deathanatos wrote:
| Heh... there are really two types of coders. Those who things
| commits should have a single, obvious, minimal purpose, and who
| will split off unrelated changes into separate commits...
|
| ... and those who tag you as a reviewer on +8,298, -1,943
| commits/PRs with the commit message "JIRA-PROJ-84138".
| satvikpendem wrote:
| > _... and those who tag you as a reviewer on +8,298, -1,943
| commits /PRs with the commit message "JIRA-PROJ-84138"._
|
| At my workplaces, we've told people who do this to break up
| their larger commit into smaller ones before reviewing. If
| they haven't done that initially, well, their life is going
| to get harder for a few days.
| NBJack wrote:
| Neat concept, but this opens up a can of worms for corporate
| security. Pretty sure I won't get approval to submit proprietary
| code to a third party service just because I was too lazy to
| write a few lines of text. Might be helpful to open source
| projects?
| xrd wrote:
| Just add fully homomorphic encryption.
|
| I agree with you, but I'm assuming this could just send a diff
| and that context would be small enough to not leak.
|
| Then again, if GPT can keep track of all the diffs...
| xrd wrote:
| Now do this for branching strategies.
|
| This is amazing. Humans should only need to read commit messages,
| never write them.
| ketralnis wrote:
| I don't really ever want to read answers from GPT to questions
| that I didn't knowingly myself ask GPT. If GPT can write a commit
| message from you, don't write it at all and let me ask it that if
| that's what I want. It may be a positive to you to spend a few
| seconds less on commit messages but it's a net negative for the
| world for it to become polluted with vast amounts of flatly
| incorrect text with no knowledge as to its provenance.
|
| Put another way, you asking GPT for stuff that it learned from
| Stack Overflow: good. Using it to post to Stack Overflow: bad.
| dheera wrote:
| Except for startups when commit messages are more like "asdf",
| "aoeu", or "demo" because some investor barged in and demanded
| a demo before they would wire funds.
| pachico wrote:
| I find commit messages have more value when they don't just
| repeat what you can see by looking at a diff but when they
| explain the reasons behind.
| jart wrote:
| The point of a summarization model is if you have a thousand
| line change, it helps to have a one sentence explanation of
| what it is. The demo videos the author used here really don't
| do a good job communicating that, because the summary GPT-3
| wrote for his one line commit was longer than the commit
| itself.
| ape4 wrote:
| I was hoping GPT-3 was going to give the reasons
| waynesonfire wrote:
| yeah and find the bugs.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I've had ChatGPT find some pretty esoteric bugs in ways
| that shocked me.
|
| Like semi-jokingly asking it to "improve" some code
| thinking it'd come up with some non obvious control flow...
| then instead having it immediately point out a subtle bug
| along the lines of "the code sets flag A instead of setting
| flag B on <insert line>" flag B wasn't even unused, so it's
| not like a simple unused variable heuristic would have
| caught that.
| [deleted]
| abi wrote:
| If you're looking for a Python variant of this tool:
| https://github.com/abi/autocommit
| smashedtoatoms wrote:
| Because what we need is more of the what was done, with no regard
| to the why. Why provide any context as to why the change was made
| when you can fill it with an AI description of what one could
| accurately tell by looking at the code? I kinda can't believe
| this isn't a joke. Just squash it to the emoji that best captures
| the sentiment! Why use the tool to enhance you and your peers
| lives, when you can use AI to make it pointless!
| FastEatSlow wrote:
| Perhaps this could be more useful if it could be fed information
| from a bug tracker, so it could use the context to create a
| meaningful (if inaccurate) commit message.
| haney wrote:
| This is interesting but I'd hate to work on a project where this
| was used. Commits should tell me why a change happened not just
| what code changed.
| warkanlock wrote:
| The peak of human society right here
| yowlingcat wrote:
| * * *
| jupp0r wrote:
| This is horrible. Commit messages should contain the reason why
| this change has been made and not imprecise prose summaries of
| what the diff looks like.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-19 23:00 UTC)