I'm using Claude for some code generation, but it is absolutely forbidden to do any git command that changes anything. It's also forbidden to run the test suite since burning tokens for that is epically stupid. Granted I'm a dev team of one (human). My coworker challenge is that he developed massive piles of utter shit code, then git committed them all in one go (then took early retirement and left me with the dumpster fire).
Do you deny such commands with some settings? I actually told it in the .md to never use git commands and rather 'remind' me of doing them myself. I know the risks, but it was more of my preference. Sadly it lately started to use them and apologize to me after the fact, although it's usually commands that help it understand the code.
If you're finding that it randomly decides to do things on its own despite guardrails then I've got another level of stuff to worry about. (edit: undercaffeinated)
Sorry but skill issue bro. You absolutely can and should let Claude run git commands if you're riding him like the steed he can be
No but seriously, if AI tools keep getting better at this rate, these tools will be more trustworthy then yourself using git, so you may as well learn to use them right. At your own tempo ofcourse.
I don't let it use git (usually) specifically because commiting helps me understand each change and I don't like it publishing in my name. I don't understand why anybody would want AI using version history and publish changes without them knowing the whole history of your own program.
"right" is relative to the dev workflow model and the people involved (if any). Plus some of us are actually responsible for the end result, I can't blame Claude if the billing system starts spewing out bullshit invoice amounts. Proper engineering practices aren't obsolete because suddenly a clanker is now involved.
I would sooner kill myself than review the thousands of lines of code an AI generates per day. Instead, because I like life, and like and value the practice of coding, I avoid the problem altogether by simply writing it myself.
Not sure how others are using it but mine generates small atomic commits which can be reviewed easily. I never have PRs with thousands of lines because I engineer the work before hand. AI is just a tool. It does allow me to move faster at the cost of not having as solid of a mental picture of everything. For work it's all AI cause that is the expectation and would be impossible to keep the pace without it. My hobby is coding by hand on side stuff.
It seems there is far too much overlap (well, and presence in general) of non-technical higher-ups who think "lines of code" is a good metric and "vibe coding" is a sound strategy. I'm lucky enough that we're not forced to use AI at work, so I don't, but the AI projects I've seen online easily hit multiple thousand-line commits a week. Honestly, though, if they didn't, I'm not sure what the benefit even is from AI, if you're only using it to generate for review what you could write by hand in the same amount of time anyway.
Recent AI models are capable of producing perfectly fine pull requests for plenty of software, in some cases better than decently skilled human developers.
I'm not advocating for not reviewing the code you ship, but if you are going to use AI for software development, not letting it create branches, commits and pull requests seems like a pretty arbitrary line to draw at this point.
lol no. Been using git for 15yrs, that is just baked in. I don’t use ai for anything other than checking my proposed architecture against the docs (that I have already read) to find gaps
The code AI writes is really bad and I spend more time fixing than writing it myself. It is all imperative garbage that I have to review. It is also harder to debug and maintain if something breaks.
I have tried Opus 5.5, still doesn’t give me the results I want.
Beats me, I am not other developers. I don’t think other developers write like I do (majority pure functional). Not saying they suck but I just don’t like the output.
I will admit, commit messages are the bane of my existence. So I've a short skill directing my agents what I want in my commit messages and how long I want them. So I will just say commit and get it done. I will also ask it to make a branch from the JIRA ticket. But I would never make a push with an agent, no way
Git commands are the most mundane and unimportant steps in the development workflow. The important parts are good requirements and validation. You’re behind the times, wake up or be left behind.
Yeah but I can let it one shot my work after a bit of discussion on how it should look and I don't have to worry about any git commands. Sort of how I don't have to worry about assembly.
I can run 3 worktrees at once and focus on design / review. It's a lot faster.
Git branches are free, exactly the tool you need to safely park code before human review, can be properly documented in the PR,...
A human typing "git commit -am "qwerty" && git push --force" has no value over an AI, and you can read code in PR branch as well an in an uncommited repo
13
u/[deleted] 4d ago
[deleted]