From: Thomas Bachem <mail@thomasbachem.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2026 07:46:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] sequencer: run auto maintenance once a sequence is done
Message-ID: <CAA0xjtoQ_GjkG2FrhvNgGzaee4d7ypht9NpBSacw2fCO_=i=Sw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ap-iEoeY7XKjeZgL@pks.im>

Hi Patrick,

On 08/09/2026 07:50, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> Maybe. The question is what kind of impact it would have on other
> subsystems. I think the most important part that I'm after is that the
> commit message explains design decisions like this, as it gives the
> reader the required context to be able to evaluate the patch.

None that I can see. Outside sequencer.c the sequencer is only entered
from builtin/rebase.c and builtin/revert.c, so those two are the only
places the call moves to. I'll put that, and why, in the commit
message.

> It's fine to use LLMs to help you with drafting the commit message. But
> what we're asking is that you double or even triple check what was
> generated and whether the generated message (1) makes sense and (2) is
> understandable by a normal human being.

Okay, I'll rewrite all three messages for v3.

Thanks,
Thomas