... actually needed a piece of it back? Comment from Norma Wick(@norma_wick): @gbasovv  That's a good point. Sometime we don't need the old code itself, just the idea behind. Keeping the project and checking. Githistory when needed sounds much better than carrying unused code around for month. Comment from Norma Wick(@norma_wick): @gbasovv  That's true. Old translation strings and config flags can be easy to overlook because they don't cause obvious ... ... compiler, so it gets noticed. Text, config and old flags just sit there quietly, so those are the ones I now try to delete in the same commit that removes the feature. Comment from George Basov(@gbasovv):

... tool after all. Comment from Enio Aguiar(@wwenioaguiar): Kanban boards for solo projects. I moved cards between columns more than I moved code. Now it's a markdown file in the repo with what I'm doing today, and githistory is my log of what got done ...

... keep running into when i read other people's repos is keys in a config file that got committed once. they delete the file later and think it's fixed but it's still sitting in the githistory. do you check

... history independent mirrors can reproduce /humanity.txt moderation never silently rewrites history

... noticed a different kind of context problem while working with AI coding agents. The agent can read the code. It can inspect the githistory. It can find the files it needs. But sometimes it still misses something important: Why we made a particular decision in the first place. For example: Why we deliberately didn't use an abstraction Why an API is handled differently in one workflow Why a certain dependency is pinned Why a seemingly duplicated piece ...

... with a great median and a fat tail every time on real work. Stephanie's time-to-merge is the same instinct measured in hours instead of tokens, with the advantage that it is already sitting in your githistory. Comment from Jernej Jan Ko ica(@jernej_jan_kocica): the denominator is the problem. cost per feature moves because no two features are the same size, so the number tells you about the ticket, not the tool. the one thats actually ...

... team has been spending a lot of time thinking about existing products rather than brand-new ones. One thing we've noticed is that as a product grows, knowledge becomes fragmented. Some decisions live in documentation, some in Githistory, and some only in the minds of the people who built the feature months ago. Adding a "small feature" often means spending more time understanding the existing system than actually implementing the change. That's exactly the problem we wanted ...

... currently using Claude Code. Comment from Mustafa Arian(@thenameisarian): if i got unlimited Fable for a month, i'd build the thing i've been backlog-shelfing for 18 months: a private agent that watches my githistory, slack threads, and PR review comments, and writes the receipts of what i actually did this quarter for performance reviews + investor updates. half of an engineer's real work never lands on a resume because nobody writes it down at the time ...

... exact contract truth at run time, and diff for what changed. That feels like the clean split. That's the direction we're taking Ota too. Curious what you use today for this. Is it mostly CI logs + Githistory, or do you already have an artifact you trust when repo assumptions change? Comment from Dani Polani(@dani_polani): Bad but common case is when the behavior is split between a number of custom scripts and only the initial developer ... ... declared and checked before someone gets stuck. We wrote about that in more detail here: https://ota.run/blog/how-ota-pre... Comment from Ghost Kitty(@ghost-kitty-9871002): Comment Deleted Comment from Ahmad(@blah_mad): Today it s still a stitched artifact:

... good. So the one load-bearing question back, because it decides whether the code signal is even reachable for you: does NEST sit close enough to the repo to ingest githistory, or is it deliberately architected upstream of the code layer? If you can reach

... local repository is rarely just source code. Over time, it becomes a mix of source files, Githistory, dependencies, generated build output, caches, logs, assets, local databases, framework artifacts, and tool-specific folders. That makes project size surprisingly hard to reason about. When a repo grows to 10 GB, 30 GB, or more, the first question should not be: What can I delete? It should be: What is this project actually made of? That idea became Projects in Room Service ... ... Projects gives local development folders their own workspace. It scans repositories and breaks them down into meaningful groups like

... seeing that cost is definitely a limiter in my case, so I settled on a free tool that also limits the number of models it uses. Comment from Sacha MORARD(@sachamorard): @alina_petrova3  I agree! There are alternatives to Sonnet, for sure. However, Sonnet is now recognized as the best (coupled with Claude Code) by a huge portion of developers, and I know many who don't want to take the risk of trying a cheaper model. This ... ... widely seen as the best. And Sonnet is definitely a high-quality model. BUT if you re building a SaaS product powered by AI, pricing is important. It directly impacts margins, scalability, and how competitive you can be. If alternatives

... code patterns that makes the code highly coupled, the way to refactor them and advices on the paradigm to use (functional, imperative, declarative...), identify the communication protocols between layers and all the dependencies, internals and on the frameworks - a githistory-based analysis to explain the legacy code. In the long term, it could replace $50k+ consulting engagements with a tool. I wonder if it worth building it and spend time on this. For those in software companies: - Have ...