So if I use Claude to write the first pass at the code, make a few changes myself, ask it to make an additional change, change another thing myself, then commit it — what exactly do you expect to see then?
replyThe reason I want it to be marked as such is because I review AI code differently than human code - it just makes different kinds of mistakes.
replyYou can disclose that you used an LLM in the process of writing code in other ways, though. You can just tell people, you can mention it in the PR, you can mention it in a ticket, etc.
reply+1. If we’re at an early stage in the agentic curve where we think reading commit messages is going to matter, I don’t want those cluttered with meaningless boilerplate (“co-authored by my tools!”).
replyBut at this point i am more curious if git will continue to be the best tool.
I'm only beginning to use "agentic" LLM tools atm because we finally gained access to them at work, and the rest of my team seems really excited about using them.
replyBut for me at least, a tool like Git seems pretty essential for inspecting changes and deciding which to keep, which to reroll, and which to rewrite. (I'm not particularly attached to Git but an interface like Magit and a nice CLI for inspecting and manipulating history seem important to me.)
What are you imagining VCS software doing differently that might play nicer with LLM agents?
I guess if enough people use it, doesn’t the tag become kind of redundant?
replyAlmost like writing “Code was created with the help of IntelliSense”.