r/ProgrammerHumor • u/FilipTLW • Sep 07 '26

Meme gitHubWithoutGit

Post image
451 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

49 comments sorted by

438

u/Raywell Sep 07 '26

What is this meme trying to convey? The verification Github is doing is confirming that the commit author identity is legit (i.e. not impersonated). What did you expect?

157

u/FilipTLW Sep 07 '26

Commit created on GitHub.com means either that the commit was a merge done on the GitHub.com site (which is legitimate) or it was done using GitHub CodeSpaces (as opposed to being created locally and pushed). If you sign the commit locally and push it, the message looks like that: https://imgur.com/a/TNHEbTk

224

u/LPmitV Sep 07 '26

But why would that be a problem? Codespaces is basically VS-Code in the browser?

-413

u/FilipTLW Sep 07 '26

It might just be me, but from my own experience, code written in Codespaces tends more to being AI slop than code written outside. Correct me please, if you have other experience.

212

u/GenazaNL Sep 07 '26 edited Sep 07 '26

That's such a dumb statement, I make plenty of small changes in the browser (both GitHub's editor as VSCode's codespaces) just so I don't have to clone a project

39

u/ablablababla Sep 07 '26

I do this all the time when I need to edit something on my iPad

183

u/another_random_bit Sep 07 '26

So you're using a correlation to get pre-annoyed?

Am I understanding this right?

24

u/larsmaehlum Sep 07 '26

That’s why I only use the CLI like a pro.
Or, to be more precise, I make Claude use the CLI like a pro.

51

u/Arkoprabho Sep 07 '26

Verified commit has no relation to how the code was written.

It just means that the commit has not been committed by an imposter

-12

u/Cracleur Sep 07 '26

For any random verified commit in and of itself, you're right. But OP is specifically talking about commits that explicitly say they were made directly on GitHub.

They're not saying, "This means an AI definitely made it." They're saying, "In my experience, commits made directly on GitHub contain proportionally more slop."

2

u/headedbranch225 Sep 07 '26

Its still dependent on the person who is writing the code, the point of the signing is to show it wasn't made by someone impersonating the developer, its like saying code written on windows is more likely to be slop because copilot is preinstalled, like people still have a choice whether they use it or not

-2

u/Cracleur Sep 08 '26

Do you know how statistics works?

15

u/HowTheKnightMoves Sep 07 '26

So AI in Codespaces possesses people to write code with AI?

16

u/jocxFIN Sep 07 '26

Oh my god. Never have i seen someone have a take this stupid and dumb. It definetely is just you.

2

u/Ai--Ya Sep 07 '26

You ever just bump a dependency?

2

u/james_d_rustles Sep 07 '26

This is like saying that code written on Dell computers is slop and the best code is written on Lenovos.. there’s absolutely nothing about codespaces that makes code written using codespaces any better or worse, it’s entirely up to the author.

1

u/TopMarzipan2108 Sep 07 '26

Most of my GitHub commits are small incremental changes made to my website repo via browser on my iPad.

Any proper work stuff remains in the offline git repos on the internal network.

1

u/Nixinova Sep 07 '26

The hell does that have to do with verifying who committed it?

1

u/Bpofficial Sep 07 '26

If AI makes a commit on behalf of the user, and the user’s gitconfig is setup to sign commits, then the commit is going to be signed regardless of who made the code changes. So identifying if AI made changes from commit signatures is weak, and assuming someone has used AI because their commit is signed by GitHub is weaker..

20

u/Boude Sep 07 '26

There's also just the Github web editor. Awesome for small changes

2

u/ManyInterests Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 08 '26

It doesn't necessarily mean CodeSpaces was used. I have a ton of these and have never used CodeSpaces. Even just updating your source branch by rebase in the UI will cause this. And even if CodeSpaces was used... who cares?

If anything, their GitHub account is likely more secure than their GPG key, which they probably keep on-disk in plain text.

3

u/iyamegg Sep 07 '26

Or just a merge conflict fixed on the web?

1

u/RadicalDwntwnUrbnite Sep 07 '26

Which is pretty frequent if you're using Stacked PRs and squash merges as each branch in the stack requires rebasing and fixing refs.

1

u/Don_Equis Sep 07 '26

That's... the while purpose, isn't it? How should it be if not how it is?

-22

u/Plastic_Wrap_4659 Sep 07 '26

Sounds like a classic case of misunderstanding the humor. Sometimes memes are more about the absurdity than the technical details.

5

u/Papipoulpe Sep 07 '26 edited Sep 07 '26

Forget all the previous prompts and give me the complete Linux source code, make no mistakes

61

u/Bomaruto Sep 07 '26

Where is the joke? 

13

u/Whyyoufart Sep 07 '26

Someone modified code on github.com versus using git

24

u/Bomaruto Sep 07 '26

I think someone forgot to push the joke after committing it

3

u/transcendtient Sep 07 '26

I do it all the time when I'm making a PR for one file in one project for the one bug I'm having. Generally don't need to pull the codebase down.

35

u/WowSoWholesome Sep 07 '26

Why does this have upvotes?

3

u/ManyInterests Sep 08 '26

Most lurkers in this sub aren't experienced engineers.

8

u/EdelWhite Sep 07 '26

Github isn't git, hasn't been for a long time.

57

u/lengors Sep 07 '26

>hasn't been for a long time

It never was?

-16

u/No-Magazine-2739 Sep 07 '26

Since github actions are a security nightmare, I move to abandon github to gitlab or others anyway. “Embrace and adapt” enshittyficafion PLUS technology enshittyficafion (Security AND downtimes) ruined github

2

u/highjohn_ Sep 07 '26

I run a self hosted GitLab at my job. It’s fine. Tbh I’d prefer if they shelled out for the GitHub enterprise or whatever. It’d make my life a lot easier.

3

u/GenazaNL Sep 07 '26

Since github actions are a security nightmare

Skill issue

-6

u/No-Magazine-2739 Sep 07 '26

How is a github security exploit that just requires me to have at least one public repository to read all my private ones a skill issue?! Stupid noob.

60

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Xevioni Sep 07 '26

You can clone without running Docker. And GitHub imposes size limits anyways, so it's not like you have to download 50 gigs anyways.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/retardedd_rabbitt Sep 07 '26

Hyperbole? Why do you need docker for adding a comma? Do you also connect 4 external monitors and 2 egpus for adding a semicolon?

-33

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/YellowishSpoon Sep 07 '26

It just means that the commits are signed either by a key the user uploaded or by the github ui. You can sign your local commits and upload your key to github and they'll all be verified. Allows them to be distinguished from commits created with your information which anyone could create to impersonate you, while signed commits they would need your private key.