Hacker News Reader

> then had a commit made for every minor issue found

Interesting choice of words. Not a fix. Not a refactor. A commit.

Not sure what you’re getting at

Test coverage for its own sake is not always a worthwhile goal.

Unless it was indeed valid coverage? You are assuming it was all bad

Coverage started out kind of mediocre, about 50% IIRC. There were a lot of easy wins, and a handful of files were intentionally ignored.

I also had it first review all tests for superfluous ones that could be deleted.

That's how the LLMs made you think of your work? You're producing commits now?

It's like "content creator" vs "writer" or "artist".

I'm not producing commits. LLMs are producing commits.

Fix more things, solve more problems, and do it to a higher degree of quality in less time using LLMs. What's to complain about?

Basically that using "commits" implies a certain degree of psychological detachment from your work. Did you ever use "commits" before LLMs came out?

An actual psychologist could explain it much better than me, but i notice these things.

Fair enough. I didn’t do most of the work.

I've long thought that commits are the principle unit of work for a software developer. We don't ofter write software from scratch, we modify existing software - and a well crafted commit is a great way to capture that effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com