From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2026 09:39:29 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: fix --force-if-includes when remote-tracking ref has no reflog Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260905171343.34722-1-f@lex.la> On Sat, Sep 5, 2026, at 19:13, Aleksei Sviridkin wrote: > Junio C Hamano 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]