Hacker News Reader

Comment by IanCal | Hacker News Reader

What’s the problem with that? Seems to make sense to me with the example and it’s important to point out. I’d expect an llm to explain in more detail to be honest.

View on HN

It doesn’t quite make sense at face value by itself. It’s too condensed and takes some effort to parse out what it’s actually getting at. It’s not communicating why the change was made. It’s just a shiny way of saying the words without actually helping me easily understand what’s happening, what’s changing, why, etc.

In plain English, maybe it’d be more like “Package specifiers for git repositories should no longer include the HTTPS/SSH protocol. Instead, reference the repository name, and pnpm will resolve it through HTTPS. If SSH is still needed, add an override in your global git settings”

yes! and this is sooo weird given that Opus 4.8 or 5 producing this are supposed to be "smart" models – how far into the benchmaxxing do you have to lean to get to this point?

They can include the protocol, it’s that regardless of what’s put in there it’ll use https, which is explained with examples both in the following sentences and then in more detail in a linked doc.

> For repositories on GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket, a specifier now names a repository rather than choosing a transport. github:owner/repo, owner/repo, git+https://…, and git+ssh://git@… all resolve through the host's canonical HTTPS URL, and the lockfile never records an SSH URL for those hosts. To reach a private hosted repository over SSH, configure the machine with git's own URL rewriting:

    git config --global url."git@github.com:".insteadOf https://github.com/

> pnpm shells out to git, so the rewrite applies to all of its git operations. Unknown hosts keep their exact URL, SSH included, and a URL with embedded credentials is kept verbatim and never resolves to a host archive. Details in How git dependencies are resolved.

If you spend all day talking to Claude then its mannerisms begin to grate on you like fingernails on a chalkboard.

There's nothing wrong with the English per se, it's grammatically correct, it just sounds so "Claude". Claude talks using pithy word soups that lack the niceties and structure of human writing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com