I may be missing something, but this is exactly what I want as a default. I want the session links there. I see PRs from my coworkers with session links.

I still get to control whether other people can see the session, but I don’t lose it.

I don’t get the “unprofessional” argument. This is attribution. Attribution is professional. If you don’t want it, you turn it off or rewrite the commit messages. If you are having Claude write the commit messages FOR YOU and you are NOT READING THEM then that’s what’s unprofessional. I am honestly kind of shocked and disappointed by how upset people are by this.

From my point of view; I share Debian's perspective:

https://lwn.net/Articles/1091231/

Which is actually why I DON'T like the session amended. Ultimately it is an ad placed into the Git log, and noise at that. Regardless of if it exists or not, the professional responsibility for what is contained in that PR/commit falls to the feet of the developer contributing it.

Microsoft previously did this with Copilot, which was correctly met with a very negative response. I don't see why an ad by Anthropic is better than an ad from Microsoft.

Realistically, what do you actually get from viewing people's sessions? I honestly don't really understand why people care.

The specific model used can't be important because theres a new trending one every couple weeks nowadays. The conversation could be wildly out there and have 10+ different iterations of the same thing in it that led to the final product, etc.

It's not like before AI we were asking people to explain every single iteration they went through in their commit body, or to see their entire internal dialogue.

I don't really understand people's hype around needing to see the conversation they had with their AI. As long as the code itself is self-documented and final decisions are relatively well-documented future agents and humans will pick up on it much faster than reading the entire transcripts anyways.

That's not even bringing into the fact that there are people who use multiple models, multiple sessions, multiple harnesses across the same commits/changesets. How do you reconcile those alongside people who could have made human changes in the end?

It’s a default that changed silently during an automatic update.

Also I frequently use an LLM to commit work that I have written. It is just misleading in that case.

I'm OK with the attribution, but I just didn't like a session URL appearing on a public repo all of a sudden. I was left wondering "did I just leak my private session?"

I don't understand why it isn't opt-in. Or at least a heads-up somewhere.

>This is attribution.

I think a lot of people interpret it as trying to foist additional burden on reviewers. As in "here's my PR, I would like to take credit for this idea, it's now on you to review. If you find a problem with it, I expect you to call out exactly what my incorrect assumptions were, which you are able to do because they're all buried somewhere in this Claude session. Let me know what they are and I'll paste them into a new session and submit again."

I agree that attribution is professional. What I would worry about is people using the link to supply the reasoning behind the change without putting it into the commit message. Then you have the problem of needing to load the session to understand the change, when one would ideally be able to get that context from source control alone.

> Attribution is professional.

It's also, like, kind of the point of using git, isn't it? So putting this in the commit message feels very appropriate to me.

People are sick of Anthropic, and everyone, turning every little thing into a chance to manipulate reality in their favour.

> This is attribution.

More like an ad for trillion dollar corporations. Not in the business of giving those out for free.

Attribution also helps people who want to judge others for using AI. Not even slightly interested in enabling any form of prejudice and stigma against myself. Even the markdown files that agents use don't go into my master branches anymore.

I think there's a distinction between attribution and linking to something nobody else can necessarily access. Placing a path to my local build is something I'd avoid because it's irrelevant to everyone else. I think the same applies here.

Provenance, provenance, provenance

hard disagree. I'm not gonna read the session log, and I don't care for it at all.

as for the commit message: if it's the usual verbose Claude style, I'm also not going to read it. to be honest, probably if it's not verbose, I'm still not reading it.

I'll ask my review agent anyway to summarize your code. My review agent will read your commit message.

I don’t attach a raw dump of all the conversations I have with colleagues to my commit messages, and wouldn’t want to work in a place where I did.

Sometimes I tell Claude ‘don’t trust file X, it was written by a colleague who writes awful tests’. I don’t want that in my commit messages.

Sure, but it does spook some people like me where I frequently mention context in session like: "it would be better to fix this on the backend, but that is a separate team that moves VERY slowly", etc. And I don't want that accidentally getting broadcast.

One thing I’ve done is a few books and check what branch / work tree user is on. Allows for more fidelity than even this. Works quite well.

I just wish they allow for getting inside subscription pricing vs outside subscription pricing easier

I talk to Claude like no one is going to read it. full of typos, often via voice where I am literally just thinking out loud.

I don’t think anyone will find it valuable and I don’t want anyone to read it

Same here, cool, now Claude can grab the context from the session to reason better about why things are the way they are.

Maybe an ID alone would have been better, not a whole http url.

Why not use something like openspec? You get the benefits of context without a whole conversation to read.

https://openspec.dev/

Having it there by default is an ad. Turning it on explicitly is a dev tool.

Most comments I read were positive, what kind of negative sentiment were you picking up in these comments?

It is because many "developers" want to pretend that they have read the code and have understood it so they can claim it as their own.

Attribution is indeed professional. If you use an AI to write the code for you and have no idea why you accepted the decisions it made nor can you explain them to another human, that would be clear evidence of acute skill atrophy.

I don’t give a flying f*ck what you prompted the LLM I only care if your code is good.

Do you put IDE attribution in your commits? Attribution is silly, AIs are hammers not interns.

Though reading you yelling at the bot and calling it a Clanker might elicit a chuckle from me.

[dead]