Are these generated descriptions of LLM submitted changes or of human changes? If a human, shouldn't they be putting the motivation into the PR?

▲

spike021 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In my experience even before LLMs came along it was a matter of engineering culture how much a human put their motivations and rationales into why their diff came out the way it did.

▲

nitwit005 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My company has an AI tool appending a summary after the human one. As far as I can tell, people aren't reading it.

If people create the PR using something like Claude, you get an AI summary after another AI summary.

▲

alecbz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LLM-generated (or at least LLM-assisted), but a human's still the one submitting the PR for review.

▲

dylan604 5 hours ago | parent [-]

A PR with a minimal title and empty description should be refused at submission. If the human is so disinterested that they're using LLM generated code and then can't explain the purpose, that human should be prevent from making the PR. Working as a solo dev, it is very easy to be lazy like that, and I'm as guilty as anyone. Working in teams with actual reviews should absolutely have much more strict policies of what is considered a valid PR

▲

jjmarr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even before AI this was common.

▲

alecbz 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, the “meta” right now is trying to automate as much of the software engineering flow as possible, including writing PR descriptions.

They’re shooting for LLMs being able to one-shot PRs or need minimal oversight. But yeah, in practice LLMs are not there IME.

▲

dylan604 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This is the biggest issue I have with current state of affairs. It's not there yet. Because of that, extra work is needed to get them to work that otherwise would not need to be spent. Everyone is shouting from the roof tops about how great things are while suppressing these types of issues.

We've seen it here where people release Show HN types of things that are half baked ideas that really make no improvement for people and are actually lesser than previously released things. Yet they are expecting people to be amazed. Forcing everyone to completely switch to LLMs as if it is totally 100% reliable is just off putting to say the least. It takes discussing things with people honestly looking at the situation to have any semblance of thinking you're not the insane one for pushing back

	▲	Avicebron 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think everyone is coasting while the craze is on. Either it ends up being able to one shot all work and we have bigger problems. Or it can't, definitively, and we have bigger problems.

▲

skydhash 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> A PR with a minimal title and empty description should be refused at submission

Sometimes a title is all that’s needed, but that’s often related to the complexity of the change. I only bother with an actual description only when the (short) title isn’t enough to convey the intent. But it’s very rare to go past one paragraph. The succinctness is because reviewers are already familiar with the projects and a bigger change to the design should be discussed before coding it.