Rendered at 23:46:44 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
NichoPaolucci 7 hours ago [-]
“It never reimplements git — it shells out to the system git CLI and rebuilds commits with git commit-tree, reusing each commit's original tree so file contents are provably never changed.”
Glad the LLM noted this - I was worried this would reimplement git
rozab 5 hours ago [-]
One of the most annoying quirks of LLMs for me is the insistence on, after being corrected, loudly noting what wasn't done. After getting it to change something stupid in code, it will leave a comment in the code boasting about how it doesn't do the stupid thing, which to future readers reads like an 'asbestos free!' label on a cereal box.
evan_ 5 hours ago [-]
I’ve left so many PR reviews in the last few months that are essentially “this looks good but delete 80% of the comments.”
munk-a 5 hours ago [-]
Lets assume one of two worlds - one where AI is constantly improving and one where the tooling is a dead end. In the first world the AI generated comments are no better than the commentary that would be generated in the next six months - in the second world the AI generated comments will obscure the human written comments.
In what world are AI generated comments actually value adds?
evan_ 3 hours ago [-]
If the AI (or the person) ran into a non-obvious constraint, or some externality, or there’s a plan that just isn’t implemented yet- then the comment wouldn’t be able to be divined by the AI. But yeah just pointing the AI at something and saying “write me docs” will get you something at best equally good as what’s going to be available.
victor_edka 5 hours ago [-]
this. like I feel that even telling sonnet 5 to explicitly not add comments it still produces them even on suppa simple logic
orisho 4 hours ago [-]
I have a contrarian take on this: if most people working on the codebase are using the same model, then these comments serve a very useful purpose: they tell the model's future self that despite its tendency towards this solution, it is incorrect and here's why. It encodes useful context right when the model needs it next to avoid making the same error.
I imagine this style of commenting is partially responsible for model improvement in SWE work, a trained trait through feedback, since it makes the comments actually useful. Not to you or me, but to an LLM.
Some of these errors are obvious to a human, that's why we find the comments unnecessary. But if everyone's using LLMs and said model tends to make this error, then they are very useful. It's like a comment you would leave for another human to help them avoid a footgun. It's just a LLM footgun, not a human one.
vips7L 1 hours ago [-]
If LLMs are any good, like many of you claim, they won’t need these comments. They will ingest the code and know what was done. They won’t need comments about what wasn’t done.
sander1095 4 hours ago [-]
I agree, but that information should be in the commit, which the model also has access to. Of course it's more token intensive to look through commits, but "good" models might know when some more research about a particular bit of code they find weird would be a good idea. Thoughts?
cromka 2 hours ago [-]
It doesn't necessarily have to go through commits, it can do bare git blame to see if something stands out. But otherwise agreed.
colechristensen 5 hours ago [-]
One of the reasons this is there is the "psychology" of the LLM performs better with these kinds of affirmations. If you've made a mistake once you're likely to make it again, so leave a note.
This indeed pollutes the code with a bunch of nonsense. One of the things I have it maintain instead is a "findings" document with lessons learned and such.
whateveracct 7 hours ago [-]
why can't anyone just do things themselves anymore? it's all LLM crap
danudey 7 hours ago [-]
For what it's worth, I've used Claude to write a lot of smaller utility tools that I wouldn't normally have the time to sit down and implement, but which also solve straightforward problems.
One small example is an extension for the `gh` cli where I give it a PR number and multiple branches and it cherry-picks that PR to those branches, or lets me know if some of the branches don't work. For managing multiple release branches it's very handy, but not so handy that I would have spent a lot of time and energy doing a good job of it.
This seems like a similar sort of thing - a user friendly way to do something that most people don't need, and most people who need it probably don't need it very badly.
I haven't used claude to replace my actual skills - researching, solving problems, etc. - but I do use it to replace all the stuff which is essentially 'spend a few hours reading API docs and writing boilerplate code'.
whateveracct 7 hours ago [-]
but if you were sharing those utilities - even in a github gist! - why not write the English parts for human consumption yourself?
gritzko 6 hours ago [-]
That is in fact the difficult part. You have to explain it all coherently while adjusting to the reader's frame. No one does that for no good reason. It is hellish work.
saghm 7 hours ago [-]
git has a notoriously overcomplicated interface, so this is a scenario that I can honestly understand why someone wouldn't want to do it by hand
whateveracct 7 hours ago [-]
but what about the writing English to describe it part? does English also have a notoriously overcomplicated interface lol
arscan 6 hours ago [-]
Well, yeah, it does.
Effective and clear communication is really important and often really hard for engineers. It is said that one goal of stackoverflow was to help programmers learn how to write through practice, as it’s both very hard and very critical to their effectiveness:
But programmers are also lazy*, so why put in the effort to improve when you can just get llms to do the work for you?
* not necessarily in a bad way
saghm 5 hours ago [-]
I mean, given that the English you wrote above didn't make it clear that was the only part you were complaining about, it's worth it to consider that maybe precision is hard in natural language regardless of how it's written
whateveracct 5 hours ago [-]
it is pretty clear in context given what i was responding to
InsideOutSanta 4 hours ago [-]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, too, but it seems to me that most people responding to you misunderstood your point.
saghm 1 hours ago [-]
I certainly didn't read it the way they intended!
vips7L 1 hours ago [-]
People are lazy.
qurren 6 hours ago [-]
They can, just in today's world, they just are not deemed impressive enough by the voting public to make it to the front page.
whateveracct 5 hours ago [-]
that's troubling..
MattGaiser 7 hours ago [-]
A tool like this never sees the light of day without an LLM. Git is complicated and use case for this is rather niche.
whateveracct 6 hours ago [-]
i definitely used to write bash functions for this sort of thing tho. no GUI, but it was useful to do stuff like obscure my working hours (make it look like i did personal stuff after-hours. make it seem like stuff took all day instead of an hour..like adding sawdust to meat).
like you said, niche and probably unnecessary. and if i were to have published them (even in a gist!) i would have written the docs myself instead of forcing people to read LLM-speak. That's just lazy.
gritzko 6 hours ago [-]
Yep, tell Claude to spit out a shell script. Use Python if bash is not enough.
whateveracct 6 hours ago [-]
It wasn't hard to just..figure it out though. One sitting tops.
Claude is learned (taught? lol) helplessness, at scale. I'm pretty sure it's their real moat.
gritzko 6 hours ago [-]
If you dont use that regularly, why keep the app?
voidfunc 6 hours ago [-]
Because I have better things to do with my time.
whateveracct 6 hours ago [-]
I have better things to do than read LLM prose copy-pasted verbatim too.
And yet here we are. I have to read LLM design docs that turn into LLM PRs with LLM PR descriptions and comments and docs.
YonathanTesfaye 7 hours ago [-]
Ha ha fair. But yeah shelling out to git and reusing the original tree object was deliberate means file contents can't change even if I screw up elsewhere.
wavemode 2 hours ago [-]
Offtopic but, it always amuses me that the words "provably" and "probably" are one letter apart (and I frequently misread them for each other).
Myzel394 7 hours ago [-]
Why would you think such a project would reimplement git?
mminer237 7 hours ago [-]
I believe that was sarcasm.
7 hours ago [-]
7 hours ago [-]
beart 4 hours ago [-]
It looks like the screenshot was an actual photo of someone's monitor. I'm left wondering why print screen wasn't utilized. And for some reason it really makes me not want to touch this project.
skinfaxi 3 hours ago [-]
Looking at the metadata it says it is a Gnome screenshot. What a pointless and incorrect non-sequitor.
exiftool -a -u -g1 ~/Downloads/screenshot.png
---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number : 13.55
---- System ----
File Name : screenshot.png
Directory : XXX
File Size : 1260 kB
File Modification Date/Time : 2026:08:11 16:24:37-04:00
File Access Date/Time : 2026:08:11 16:24:41-04:00
File Inode Change Date/Time : 2026:08:11 16:24:41-04:00
File Permissions : -rw-r--r--
---- File ----
File Type : PNG
File Type Extension : png
MIME Type : image/png
---- PNG ----
Image Width : 2351
Image Height : 1388
Bit Depth : 8
Color Type : RGB with Alpha
Compression : Deflate/Inflate
Filter : Adaptive
Interlace : Noninterlaced
Significant Bits : 8 8 8 8
Software : gnome-screenshot
Creation Time : Mon 10 Aug 2026 10:19:53 PM +03
---- Composite ----
Image Size : 2351x1388
Megapixels : 3.3
globular-toast 3 hours ago [-]
To be fair, it does really look like a photo of a monitor.
GinsengJar 13 minutes ago [-]
Look again.
Conscat 3 hours ago [-]
I thought it was a semi-transparent window until I read this. The curvature makes that clear, wow!
YonathanTesfaye 3 hours ago [-]
it is a actually a screenshot, that's zorin's window transparency doing that
iamcoder18 8 hours ago [-]
This is cool, but has anyone ever needed to rewrite commit authors or dates?
2. Sometimes I split a Git repo into two, and I want to preserve the commit history (authors and dates) on the files that end up in the new repo - effectively replay the history of just one folder from the original to help create the new one.
3. I occasionally mess up cleaning up and merging a PR from an open source contributor such that the work is incorrectly credited to me. I'll fix the commit so that it credits the right person.
fmorel 7 hours ago [-]
git-filter-repo is amazing for the second case. I've used it to split repos and rename folders multiple times.
Yes, for instance it could be useful if someone’s been accidentally committing with a bogus email address. Or if you’re cleaning up some sort of mess and would like to recreate an accurate history.
Obviously as with any “force push” situation, the usual caveats apply if this is on a branch others have checked out, but if the mess is big enough, it is sometimes worth it to send everyone a script to reset or just to have people delete and re-check-out.
schainks 8 hours ago [-]
If someone's been committing with a bogus email address and they're still working on the project, shouldn't they clean up their own commits?
blazarquasar 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah, using this tool for example?
throwaway613746 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
webstrand 7 hours ago [-]
Usually its me who has been committing with a bogus email address, because I don't like having my real user/email set in my $HOME/.gitconfig
xp84 4 hours ago [-]
Hi there, webstrand@Webstrands-MacBook-Pro.local - we meet again!
ClikeX 4 hours ago [-]
Very rarely. But it can come up if you archive change history in git for things that aren't originally tracked in git.
Take laws for example. Legalize[1] is a project that documents all laws into a git structure where each distinct change is a commit with the proper timestamp of tha change. Sure, this specific project builds that entire git history once and it's unlikely a retroactive change required such edits. But do something like this for historical sources where information is still coming in, and you might need to change a date when new findings occur.
Yes. Absolutely! Many times I had a wrong configured terminal and messed up the author. Often I work in different projects, privately and in my work, and I use different authors for both
dgunay 6 hours ago [-]
Times I have needed to do this:
- An agent messed with my git config for some reason so I had to go back and fix the commit authorship
- I created a PR mostly based on work that someone else did, so I reauthored most of the commits to be in their name
I have never personally needed to touch dates.
unqueued 5 hours ago [-]
The few times I've wanted to completely rearrange a repo, It's been enough just make a backup branch and then dump the log from there and pull what I want.
I have script somewhere I think it's called git-cherry-replace, which soft resets a commit id and copies the commit message and optionally populates GIT_COMMITTER_DATE and whatnot.
What I described is probably simple enough that an LLM can implement it.
But unless you're trying to retroactively reconstruct something to preserve the exact meaning, you should consider whether a rebase even makes sense.
icase 8 hours ago [-]
yes; when i wanted to make it look like i didn’t procrastinate for a week and implement the entire feature in one day
gaws 2 hours ago [-]
> has anyone ever needed to rewrite commit authors or dates
Yes. Plenty of times.
8 hours ago [-]
7 hours ago [-]
unqueued 5 hours ago [-]
I appreciate that it uses git-notes and that is makes backup branches in it's own namespace. I wish it were a bit lighter though.
Please put up this or another screenshot as the first thing you see in the README - please!
I'm reluctant to clone a repository and spend time on it just to find out the project looks crap and I don't want to use it. A screenshot saves other people's time :)
YonathanTesfaye 8 hours ago [-]
done
everybodyknows 7 hours ago [-]
Unreadable in iPad Safari -- delayed popup darkens the screen and demands app install.
YonathanTesfaye 7 hours ago [-]
ah that's imgur. moved it to a github-hosted image should be fine now.
no-name-here 7 hours ago [-]
Thanks, but is that a photo of a screen instead of a screenshot and that’s why it looks cloudy/random splotches are brighter?
Regardless, it’s better than nothing, thank you.
esafak 8 hours ago [-]
I'd put that in the repo not here.
YonathanTesfaye 8 hours ago [-]
you're right, done
sixtyj 8 hours ago [-]
Extra points for the name.
YonathanTesfaye 8 hours ago [-]
Appreciate it! pick a commit, stab it
sixtyj 5 hours ago [-]
Slicing or cutting fat is imho better ;)
hootz 7 hours ago [-]
Would be great to have this, but as a TUI tabular editor.
ffsm8 6 hours ago [-]
its vibecoded. just point another vibe based harness at it and youll have it in an hour or two. this thing is as trivial as you can get get, scope wise
YonathanTesfaye 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jauntywundrkind 6 hours ago [-]
Two recent threads where I sing some praises of git rebase -i, specifically linking it to a spreadsheet. Awesome to see this pop up, feels serendipitous!
Really enjoying jj these days but the git rebase -i spreadsheet remains such a winner. Expanding it more, leaning in, ftw.
YonathanTesfaye 9 hours ago [-]
I built a small Tauri app that just shows your commits in a table and lets you edit message/author/date directly, plus find & replace with regex if you need to fix a bunch at once. It backs up the branch before it rewrites anything doesn't touch file contents, just metadata.
Glad the LLM noted this - I was worried this would reimplement git
In what world are AI generated comments actually value adds?
I imagine this style of commenting is partially responsible for model improvement in SWE work, a trained trait through feedback, since it makes the comments actually useful. Not to you or me, but to an LLM.
Some of these errors are obvious to a human, that's why we find the comments unnecessary. But if everyone's using LLMs and said model tends to make this error, then they are very useful. It's like a comment you would leave for another human to help them avoid a footgun. It's just a LLM footgun, not a human one.
This indeed pollutes the code with a bunch of nonsense. One of the things I have it maintain instead is a "findings" document with lessons learned and such.
One small example is an extension for the `gh` cli where I give it a PR number and multiple branches and it cherry-picks that PR to those branches, or lets me know if some of the branches don't work. For managing multiple release branches it's very handy, but not so handy that I would have spent a lot of time and energy doing a good job of it.
This seems like a similar sort of thing - a user friendly way to do something that most people don't need, and most people who need it probably don't need it very badly.
I haven't used claude to replace my actual skills - researching, solving problems, etc. - but I do use it to replace all the stuff which is essentially 'spend a few hours reading API docs and writing boilerplate code'.
Effective and clear communication is really important and often really hard for engineers. It is said that one goal of stackoverflow was to help programmers learn how to write through practice, as it’s both very hard and very critical to their effectiveness:
https://blog.codinghorror.com/how-to-write-without-writing/
But programmers are also lazy*, so why put in the effort to improve when you can just get llms to do the work for you?
* not necessarily in a bad way
like you said, niche and probably unnecessary. and if i were to have published them (even in a gist!) i would have written the docs myself instead of forcing people to read LLM-speak. That's just lazy.
Claude is learned (taught? lol) helplessness, at scale. I'm pretty sure it's their real moat.
And yet here we are. I have to read LLM design docs that turn into LLM PRs with LLM PR descriptions and comments and docs.
1. Sometimes I do a scraping project where I want the commit dates to match when the data actually changed, reconstructed from sources like the Internet Archive or the dates on https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/release-notes/system-pro... - for example here: https://github.com/simonw/research/commits/main/extract-syst... - or this project that attempted to reconstruct the history of Tim Berners-Lee's original browser: https://github.com/simonw/1991-WWW-NeXT-Implementation/commi...
2. Sometimes I split a Git repo into two, and I want to preserve the commit history (authors and dates) on the files that end up in the new repo - effectively replay the history of just one folder from the original to help create the new one.
3. I occasionally mess up cleaning up and merging a PR from an open source contributor such that the work is incorrectly credited to me. I'll fix the commit so that it credits the right person.
Obviously as with any “force push” situation, the usual caveats apply if this is on a branch others have checked out, but if the mess is big enough, it is sometimes worth it to send everyone a script to reset or just to have people delete and re-check-out.
Take laws for example. Legalize[1] is a project that documents all laws into a git structure where each distinct change is a commit with the proper timestamp of tha change. Sure, this specific project builds that entire git history once and it's unlikely a retroactive change required such edits. But do something like this for historical sources where information is still coming in, and you might need to change a date when new findings occur.
[1] https://github.com/legalize-dev/legalize
I have script somewhere I think it's called git-cherry-replace, which soft resets a commit id and copies the commit message and optionally populates GIT_COMMITTER_DATE and whatnot.
What I described is probably simple enough that an LLM can implement it.
But unless you're trying to retroactively reconstruct something to preserve the exact meaning, you should consider whether a rebase even makes sense.
Yes. Plenty of times.
Haven't seen mentioned, but you might want to check out https://github.com/mystor/git-revise
Signed git history is immutable, and unsigned git history is a supply chain attack vector.
That said I could see this being useful for single-author WIP branches doing cleanup before a PR
I'm reluctant to clone a repository and spend time on it just to find out the project looks crap and I don't want to use it. A screenshot saves other people's time :)
Regardless, it’s better than nothing, thank you.
Git rebase -i is not that scary 119 points, 16 days ago, 151 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49053385 https://cachebag.sh/journal/interactive-rebasing/
Staging patches with git add 34 points, 12 days ago, 52 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49048570 https://cachebag.sh/journal/interactive-rebasing/
Really enjoying jj these days but the git rebase -i spreadsheet remains such a winner. Expanding it more, leaning in, ftw.