Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] sequencer: leave auto maintenance to the end of a sequence

From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
Date: Sep 8, 2026, 19:38 UTC
Message-ID: <48495cd8-c955-45c0-bcfd-ac32e4a11154@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqse3jyc2m.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Sep 8, 2026, at 17:53, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> "Thomas Bachem via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Changes since v2:
>>
>>  * Auto maintenance now runs from builtin/rebase.c and builtin/revert.c,
>>    once the command is done, instead of from three places inside the
>>    sequencer. That follows the apply backend, where "git am" leaves it to
>>    rebase.c (Patrick, Phillip).
>>  * gc.auto=0 dropped, maintenance.auto=false is enough (Patrick).
>>  * config_parameters is a char * built once with strbuf_detach() (Junio).
>>  * Patch 3 extends the tests of patch 2 instead of adding its own. They also
>>    assert that nothing runs before a stop, and cover a single pick with
>>    --edit and a sequence ending in --skip (Phillip).
>>  * Commit messages rewritten: what GIT_CONFIG_PARAMETERS is and looks like
>>    (Patrick), what patch 2 changes for the user and why the call moved
>>    (Patrick, Phillip), and the comment on the helper (Phillip).
>>
>> Based on master. Independent of the rerere lock fix in [1].
>
> Will queue.
>
> By the way, is it just me or are proposed log messages getting
> longer and longer with more irrelevant detaild these days?

(sent from mobile)

Here is my impression. Six months ago, an on the surface thorough commit message would

- describe the problem
- describe the solution conceptually
- maybe the concrete code solution...
- maybe the alternatives not followed
  through on...

(and this is still the case overall)

That can lead to verbose commit messages. But note. There were also many things *not* included.

- What tests have been added, what they test
- That the docs have been updated (accordingly)
  and howso
- Maybe even benchmarks when they are not
  relevant?

And only in the last six months have I seen commit messages that look like they are explicitly filling in an imagined form with a dozen or so reminder/mandatory points.

(Note in the cmt msg, not after it)

The most noticable ones to me are the ones with the implied checkmarks in the last paragraph.

Those old school commit messages took all the conventions and business as usual (like adding a regression test alongside the bugfix) and didn't mention “and we are still following the project guidelines by…”

Of course, for those commit messages which look more like code-to-English descriptions, I can't even keep up and judge whether they are correct and coherent.

>[snip]