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.

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”

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.

[dead]