Re: [PATCH] push: fix --force-if-includes when remote-tracking ref has no reflog

From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
Date: Sep 6, 2026, 09:39 UTC
Message-ID: <fdf8fa9c-1e6a-4f7c-bbe3-a0b41cdaabd4@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260905171343.34722-1-f@lex.la>

On Sat, Sep 5, 2026, at 19:13, Aleksei Sviridkin wrote:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> I prefer patches with human-readable explanations and known origin.

The following are just drive by comments on this point.

On Sat, Sep 5, 2026, at 19:13, Aleksei Sviridkin wrote:

> Dropped the trailer. You will not see it again.
>
> On origin: this comes out of git's own tree, not an outside corpus, and

Cool that it is only trained on Git’s corpus.

> that is why every claim in the message names a file or a commit you can
> check. The change here is one line, timestamp_t date; becoming
> timestamp_t date = 0;. I read the whole thing and can explain any line
> of it, [...]

If one can explain any and all of it, then having an AI write it is not necessary. Referring to the “human-readable explanation” point.

> and the sign-off is what carries that.

Weird LLM-like phrases like this one seems to be used a lot on these `Assisted-by` submissions (by you and Thomas Bachem recently). Inanimate nouns gain subject-agency in sentences instead of saying something plainly like, I have signed off on this and I mean it. And this is on patch discussions, not in the commit messages (which are already marked as being potentially AI written).

I feel like I should take two courses in linguistics in order to articulate this uncanny valley feeling.

By commit message volume, I would have expected the commit messages (if they are LLM-assisted) to read more like Jeff King log messages given the corpus training.

>[snip]