[guiambros]

It's funny how HN'ers frequently judge ideas based on complexity of implementation, not value.

I still remember the reaction when Dropbox was created: "It's just file sharing; I can build my own with FTP. What value could it possibly create".

[rirze]

It's a common trope. (Some) artists will often convey the same message; art should be judged on how hard it was to create. Hence why some artist despise abstract art or anything "simplistic".

We forget that human consumption doesn't increase with manufacturing complexity (it can be correlated, but not cause and effect). At the end of day, it's about human connection, which is dependent on emotion, usefulness, and availability.

[alansaber]

I mean that's the beauty of a form full of engineers

[tipiirai]

Dropbox value was instantly recognizable, but I feel I have zero use for Entire.

[1drop100soap]

I mean, I CAN see the value in pushing the context summary to git. We already have git blame to answer "who", but there is no git interrogate to answer the "why". This is clearly an attempt to make that a verb git can keep track of. It's a valuable idea.

I also seen examples of it before. I've got opencode running right now and it has a share session feature. That whole idea is just a spinoff on the concept of the same parent that led to this one.

[cseleborg]

Isn't "why" what commit message bodies are for?

[korrectional]

That's actually not a bad idea. Idk about any tools that do that tho