One of the oddities of the comments Claude makes is that they are very referential to the current session, or reference now dead/removed code... Which I consider useless. Things like "implement this X way because it's faster than Y" ... But a human reading the code wouldn't know what Y is, or that it even existed necessarily. So, I find myself constantly fixing comments to be less temporarily dependant.
Yes, I've seen this a bunch too and agree completely. Sometimes I've also see Claude comments reference details about the calling or even code in completely different modules.
There are many reasons I don't like it, but a top one is that it falsely implies that you somehow need to know these details about the removed code/calling code etc to understand this code as its written in this revisions.
I've gotta disagree with you here - it's not uncommon for me to be diving into a library I'm using at work, find a small issue or something that could be improved (measurably, not stylistically), and open a PR to fix it. No big rewrites or anything crazy, but it would definitely fit the definition of "drive by change" that _thus far_ has been welcomed.
First, install doom emacs. Second, create a shell alias for "magit" that is bound to "emacs -nw -f magit". Then just run magit like any other TUI app - the fact that it's in emacs is easy to forget.
Or, if you're into neovim, there's Neogit, which is inspired by magit. And if you're not, there's https://github.com/altsem/gitu
