← Back to context

Comment by ramoz

14 hours ago

We think so as well with emphasis on "why" for commits (i.e. intent provenance of all decisions).

https://github.com/eqtylab/y just a prototype, built at codex hackathon

The barrier for entry is just including the complete sessions. It gets a little nuanced because of the sheer size and workflows around squash merging and what not, and deciding where you actually want to store the sessions. For instance, get notes is intuitive; however, there are complexities around it. Less elegant approach is just to take all sessions in separate branches.

Beyond this, you could have agents summarize an intuitive data structure as to why certain commits exist and how the code arrived there. I think this would be a general utility for human and AI code reviewers alike. That is what we built. Cost /utility need to make sense. Research needs to determine if this is all actually better than proper comments in code

Why is this so complicated? Store a session id that points to the full conversation artifacts (off repo) with the git commit and look it up ad hoc as needed. Why do the conversations need to be in the git repos?