Show HN: Build the habit of writing meaningful commit messages

📝 Discussion Summary (Click to expand)

The discussion revolves heavily around the utility, formality, and creation of descriptive commit messages. Here are the three most prevalent themes:

1. Debate Over the Value and Usefulness of Conventional Commits (CCs)

A significant portion of the conversation centers on whether enforcing a strict, typed convention like Conventional Commits adds necessary value or merely introduces noise and mandates unhelpful categorization.

Pro-CC Argument (Visibility & Structure): Proponents value the structure for instant filtering and automated changelog generation. > "The first few characters of a commit message tell you immediately the type of change you should expect. This tells you part of the 'what' at a glance." - imiric
Anti-CC Argument (Low Value & Obstructive): Opponents argue that the classification (e.g., "chore," "fix") is either obvious from the change itself, irrelevant to their workflow, or that the required prefix clutters the essential summary. > "I agree, I hate conventional commits. Why the hell do I care if changes are chores or features? I want to know what the change was." - IshKebab

2. Skepticism Regarding AI-Generated Commit Messages Due to Verbosity and Lack of "Why"

The conversation, triggered by a tool using AI to help write commit messages, reveals widespread concern that LLMs tend to generate overly verbose, fluffy summaries that describe what the code currently does rather than the essential why behind the change.

Critique of LLM Output: Users found AI summaries often repeated diff information or used vague marketing language without providing deep context. > "It generates a whole lot of text that makes me none the wiser as to why you wanted to do any of those changes. It feels like a robot trying to justify the changes post hoc." - delusional
Desired AI Role: Some users see value only if the AI acts as an editor or critic of human input, rather than the primary author. > "By getting the AI to come up with the commit messages, you're actually removing the chance for the human, you, to practise and improve." - crabmusket

3. The Fundamental Tension Between Detailed History and Practical Workflow (The "Why" vs. The Diff)

There is a deep philosophical divide regarding whether detailed commit history is a core artifact worth maintaining or an unnecessary chore that complicates daily work (especially for those using frequent squashing or feature branches).

Argument for Detailed History (Future Self/Context): Many argue detailed messages are crucial for understanding past decisions, even if infrequently accessed. > "I know the code...when I write it. But 2 weeks later all the context is gone... when you view the git blame and read the commit message, you'll be very thankful that you explain not just 'what' you did, but 'why' you did this..." - lelandbatey
Argument Against Detailed History (Wasted Time/Alternative Storage): Others see history exploration as rare, believing context should live elsewhere (code comments, ADRs, Jira tickets) or that frequent commits should be messy until PR time. > "I never have to read git history. So spending time on commit messages is wasted time for me. 'Fix bug' is my typical commit message." - vbezhenar

🚀 Project Ideas

AI-Powered Commit Message Refinement & Critique Tool

Summary

A tool that acts as a "commit co-pilot" by prompting the user with specific questions derived from the diff/changes made, focusing on extracting the why instead of just summarizing the what.
Core Value: Maximizes the utility of commit messages by turning boilerplate generation into an interactive Q\&A session guided by AI, aiming to capture developer intent that is often missed in quick commits ("wip," "fix," etc.).

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Developers who value clean history but struggle to write detailed messages under pressure (those who default to "fix it," "stuff," or feel that AI generation is "fluff").
Core Feature	An interactive CLI/GUI prompt that analyzes staged changes (`git diff --cached`) and asks targeted, Socratic questions (e.g., "What specific bug tracker ID does this relate to?", "What alternative approaches did you reject?", "Why was this scope chosen?").
Tech Stack	Python/Go CLI tool leveraging an LLM API (like OpenAI or self-hosted Llama). Heavy use of Git plumbing commands for diff analysis.
Difficulty	Medium
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

Why HN commenters would love it: It directly addresses the criticism against current AI tools that just "repeat what is happening in code" or produce "useless fluff." Commenters like crabmusket and delusional suggest a critique tool or a focus on the why is superior.
Potential for discussion or practical utility: This tool shifts the paradigm from AI writing for you to AI prompting you to write better, accommodating the desire for both speed (avoiding typing everything) and quality (capturing critical context).

Git Trailer Visibility and Standardization Utility

Summary

A service or Git hook manager focused exclusively on promoting the use of Git Trailers (e.g., Co-authored-by:, Fixes:, Signed-off-by:) over prefixing the subject line.
Core Value: Provides tools to reliably parse, enforce, and display trailer metadata, satisfying users who prefer structured data stored in trailers over subject-line conventions like Conventional Commits that they find intrusive.

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Developers who prefer data structured in trailers (`teeray`, `imiric`'s implied preference for structured data) and Git tooling developers.
Core Feature	A client-side installation that sets up pre-commit/prepare-commit-msg hooks to gently nudge users to add required trailers. Crucially, it includes a web/desktop viewer that renders `git log` output, prominently displaying parsed trailers alongside the standard subject line.
Tech Stack	JavaScript/TypeScript for desktop/web viewer (Electron/React). Shell scripts/Node for Git hooks.
Difficulty	Low/Medium
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

Why HN commenters would love it: It directly solves the usability problem mentioned by teeray: "most Git UIs don't show [trailers] prominently, or at all." This tool makes trailers visible and enforces their structured format.
Potential for discussion or practical utility: It provides a concrete mechanism to support structured metadata advocates without fighting the subject line preference of Conventional Commits proponents. It democratizes the powerful aspects of trailers.

Branch Name Enforcement Tool Based on Current Task Linkage

Summary

A Git hook utility that links commit history back to external contexts (like issue trackers or current feature context) by enforcing a standard branch naming convention derived from the user's active task, as suggested by users needing to track context.
Core Value: Automatically attaches the why (the task/epic/ticket) to the entire history of a branch via conventional branch naming rules, addressing the "what was the current task?" problem raised by kace91 and salomonk_mur.

Details

Key	Value
Target Audience	Teams using Issue Trackers (Jira, GitHub Issues) who want commit history to automatically point to the originating work item without manually pasting IDs into every message.
Core Feature	Analyzes the issue tracker ID/name from the branch name (e.g., `feature/JIRA-1234-new-auth-flow`). It then offers a pre-commit hook that suggests appending relevant metadata (like the branch name prefix) to the commit message subject line or body, similar to what `eternityforest` suggested, but deriving the context from Git itself rather than the branch name.
Tech Stack	CLI tool in Python or Rust, leveraging external APIs for Jira/GitHub integration if necessary, or simply parsing branch names as the primary input source.
Difficulty	Medium
Monetization	Hobby

Notes

Why HN commenters would love it: It provides an automated way to link context (kace91's concern about connecting to "the current task") without forcing verbose messages on transient commits. zb noted trailers are good as they link to mutable data; linking the commit chain to a ticket ID (via the branch name) achieves a similar goal.
Potential for discussion or practical utility: It tackles the "advance the current task" problem head-on by integrating history tracking with workflow management systems, which is often less contentious than debating commit message syntax specifics.