Re:Show HN: Semantic-diff – understanding intent, risk and i...
by mvyshnyvetska on Tuesday January 27, 2026 @11:35AM
(#46782297)
Fair points :). The naming is 'evolutionary' — started as 'semantic diff' because it analyzes meaning not just lines, but 'commit review' is more accurate for what it does now.
You're right about the redundancy — same issue appearing in 3 sections is noise. Adding output config (sections to include, verbosity level) is on the list.
The 'why was this deleted' questions — yeah, the tool can't answer, but surfacing the question for the reviewer has value. At least you know to ask the author.
Good callout on dependabot. Worth reconsidering.
Thanks for actually trying it and giving specific feedback.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Show HN: Semantic-diff – understanding intent, risk and i...
by mvyshnyvetska on Tuesday January 27, 2026 @12:04PM
(#46782806)
Update: just shipped --brief flag. Thanks for the push!
Re:Show HN: Semantic-diff – understanding intent, risk and i...
by forgotpwd16 on Tuesday January 27, 2026 @02:17PM
(#46784905)
>the tool can't answer, but surfacing the question for the reviewer has value
That's true. Could even expand on this and make it have a --check-msg mode that returns 0/1 (good/bad) if commit messages lack the reasoning for the changes they're doing. Although, linting commit messages is last thing I want to do.
Re:Show HN: Semantic-diff – understanding intent, risk and i...
by mvyshnyvetska on Wednesday January 28, 2026 @02:42AM
(#46792234)
Yeah, that's more process-tooling territory — keeping this dev-focused for now.