If you manage multiple email accounts, how are you planning to keep all your emails flowing smoothly to Gmail or elsewhere? Are you switching to forwarding, using other clients, or something else entirely?

Would love to hear how the community is adapting to this change.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46763892

Points: 4

# Comments: 4

I built Forward My Inbox (https://forwardmyinbox.com) as a replacement: connects to your IMAP inbox and forwards new emails to Gmail while preserving threading, reply-to, and labels—no POP/Gmailify needed.

Credentials are encrypted, headers are preserved, forwarding is instant. Looking for feedback from anyone affected by the shutdown or using similar workflows.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46757278

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46644524

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Code reviews are essential, but I keep seeing the same pattern: PR reviews are full of comments about trivial bugs, lint issues, and convention mismatches that could have been caught before the code ever left the developer’s machine.

With AI-assisted coding becoming the norm, this seems worse, not better. AI is fast, but it happily produces subtle bugs, inconsistent patterns, and sloppy edge cases. By the time a PR is up, reviewers are debugging noise instead of reviewing architecture, correctness, or intent.

Why isn’t pre-commit review (automated or otherwise) the default place to catch these issues? Is there a real downside, or is this just inertia?

I built a small pre-commit review tool to experiment with this idea and genuinely can’t imagine going back, but I’m curious why this isn’t already standard practice.

Would love to hear how others think about this.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46630596

Points: 3

# Comments: 3

It feels increasingly backwards that PR reviews are where we catch basic bugs, style issues, and convention violations.

With AI writing a large chunk of code now, the volume of small, avoidable mistakes has gone up. Yet we still wait until PRs to point out things that could have been flagged instantly, pre-commit, on the author’s machine.

PR review should be about design, correctness, and tradeoffs — not “missing await”, inconsistent patterns, or obvious slop.

Is there a good reason pre-commit review isn’t the norm, or are we just accepting an inefficient workflow because it’s familiar?

Curious how others see this.

With more AI-written code, tests pass but logic issues still slip through. Would earlier, pre-commit code reviews make more sense?

I’m exploring this idea with a tool that reviews logic at commit time — curious how others think about timing reviews earlier.

Curious to hear what would actually help

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46573513

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

I spent some time improving the CommitGuard landing page to make it clearer and more direct about what the tool does.

I’d love your honest feedback, does it make sense at a glance? Any suggestions for improvement?

https://commitguard.ai

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46570466

Points: 1

# Comments: 2

I’m experimenting with commit-based code review as an alternative to PR-based review.

Instead of analyzing large PR diffs, this reviews each commit incrementally, while context is still fresh. It’s fully configurable and intentionally low-noise, high signal - focused on catching issues that tend to slip through and compound over time.

The goal isn’t to replace CI or PR review, but to move some feedback earlier:

risky changes hidden in small diffs

architectural or consistency drift

performance or security footguns

Happy to answer questions

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46550571

Points: 15

# Comments: 4

So I created this tool that runs on commit. It is easily configurable and bypassable.

Would love to hear what community thoughts are on this idea.

You can also add custom prompts, choose context option and severity.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46544550

Points: 1

# Comments: 3