The major problem I see with these are linkrot. Do any of us truly believe these links will work 30 years from now?

Post IPO, many years down the line, a leadership that is eager to cut costs will look at their storage usage and expire 7 year old non-training sessions. Quickest thing to go. I have zero faith in any successful provider getting this right.

Git is supposed to be the durable storage medium, self containing and weathering the passage of time. Now we're littering the repos with a bunch of URLs that are only helpful in the short term.

▲

delecti 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I can't imagine a project so wildly successful and stable that the session URL in a commit history is relevant after 5 years, let alone 30. Git is only 21 years old. I'm not deciding team policies with a multi-decade view.

That said, I wouldn't agree with using the session URL as the entire commit message, or even with letting the session URL make up for other missing details. But to me it's an at-worst neutral change to add it to an otherwise acceptable commit message.

	▲	mccr8 19 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		While working on Firefox, I do sometimes look back at Bugzilla (the project's issue tracker) activity from 26 years ago to try to figure out why some code is the way it is. However it feels hard to believe that the role of LLMs in another 20 years will be close enough to the way it is now for a session history like this to be very useful.
	▲	1718627440 18 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		30 years ago is only 1996. I very much do debug code from that time and am glad for anything useful written in the commit message. URLs are useful, because either the website still exists or it is maybe in the wayback machine.
	▲	lanyard-textile 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's fair :) Can't say I've looked at any 30 year old commits lately myself.