←back to thread

Claude Code Checkpoints

(claude-checkpoints.com)
184 points punnerud | 5 comments | 28 Aug 25 09:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.827s | source
Show context
emilecantin ◴[28 Aug 25 12:47 UTC] No.45051525[source]▶
I tend to have auto-accept on for edits, and once Claude is done with a task I'll just use git to review and stage the changes, sometimes commit them when it's a logical spot for it.

I wouldn't want to have Claude auto-commit everything it does (because I sometimes revert its changes), nor would I want to YOLO it without any git repo... This seems like a nice tool, but for someone who has a very different workflow.

replies(3): >>45051585 #>>45052131 #>>45055200 #
1. michaelmior ◴[28 Aug 25 13:46 UTC] No.45052131[source]▶
As someone who doesn't use CC, auto-commit seems like it would be the easiest way to manage changes. It's easy enough to revert or edit a commit if I don't like what happened.
replies(2): >>45052167 #>>45072355 #
2. emilecantin ◴[28 Aug 25 13:49 UTC] No.45052167[source]▶
It's also very easy to throw away unstaged changes, and to stage exactly what you want. I treat the staging process ("git add") as a code review.
replies(1): >>45052329 #
3. fastball ◴[28 Aug 25 14:05 UTC] No.45052329[source]▶
It's also very easy to throw away actual commits, as long as you don't push them (and even then not so difficult if you're in a context where force-pushing is tolerable).
replies(1): >>45053717 #
4. emilecantin ◴[28 Aug 25 15:51 UTC] No.45053717{3}[source]▶
True, but it's harder to reject changes in one file, make a quick fix, etc. I like to keep control over my git repo as it's a very useful tool for supervising the AI.
5. adastra22 ◴[30 Aug 25 06:24 UTC] No.45072355[source]▶
Do you not use git bisect?