News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration rege... by zx8080 on Tuesday March 31, 2026 @10:40PM (#47596136)
> If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR!

How about compiler?

Re:The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration rege... by rogerrogerr on Wednesday April 01, 2026 @12:34AM (#47596856)
Are you checking in compiled artifacts? Then yeah, we should have a chain of where that binary blob came from.
Re:The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration rege... by ben-schaaf on Wednesday April 01, 2026 @12:36AM (#47596862)
Compilers don't usually write the code that ends up in a PR. But compilers do (and should) generally leave behind some metadata in the end result saying what tools were used, see for example the .comment section in ELF binaries.
Re:The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration rege... by catlifeonmars on Wednesday April 01, 2026 @03:12AM (#47597832)
Compiler versions are usually included in the package manifest. Generally you include commit info compiler version and compilation date and platform embedded in the binaries that compilers produce.
Re:The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration rege... by kuschku on Tuesday April 07, 2026 @04:38AM (#47672302)
Do you check in binaries into your git history? If so, you should mark a commit as generated, and the commit message (plus repository state) should be enough to recreate it 1:1.

Similarly, if I use e.g. jextract or uniffi to generate Java interfaces from C code and check that in, I'll create tooling to automatically run those, and the commit will be attributed to that tooling.