From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B87F26FA4B for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 17:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784310824; cv=none; b=K7LEHby4qa7K2A2yjB38vWofiPJLGqLIZYN/nsv42wsPB9IZAUEpXyu6QAcQ46uJe0seP8nwhgphsBkgTdcf7lBbKB/AGClgST9lO9PwOPW1pAtGmhUTUW3iTZgnYAwaxZwScVxdB1gFqRVy1Vv04ZnQUbwK6Q3D1APDtD+he+w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784310824; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UZfcbLqmvlw+jRVd71Nn3X22PBHbhyDah4mVQUjU7Ys=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qk+mKF0Vidntm/aLj6emU7zCerYvxmPBp8xYRUSACT81bmwKXp7Zlpyw09UTamK4os0l2AsdSa6yYYOStNSUcex0zYiFX3+ZM8GHFPxVHPz2O7g51M/SKV3/1Gn2hRRE7ty3uJ9+yIRsFQW/zkLbLz/d1XCXGh+TctpvX0ywPJU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=w+OgFmSV; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=YeBYXcpc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="w+OgFmSV"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="YeBYXcpc" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D8A1400124; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:53:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1784310822; x=1784397222; bh=rQF7qGSg/9 4omtgZ6LpaVptP+RQqLAhfkHn8ahZLVc8=; b=w+OgFmSVvsE2hoQTFJ6aKBtKxO sSKcjMI/C/LCtfw9FQdvdCnVB8ixzhqhddiZY72KjHiW3X4BXEsVrp/lw/7kSgJx gnn0AwsulO7tmD8tOco/7X/goTAd4MaDI1y5qvsobOKqjA8QkX3Z2hRGrJAVBfs2 9wrlNFAvBeQ3aqz5Fcy3ywyATwKYJ2wGh1r6F+WtZGZZq5YzzQ/HumkkLa56F7Vb vP10PRb+dGJa6q7ajXjSiqN5VCCLW7htyYku/dTpkJOikjImpKnIUygpu9rJM6Mr yAPj3a2IEROv4LttrIkc0ajlDEsQHXnBAdy+anQ7q8U5M+J5LL+rty4/e+RA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1784310822; x=1784397222; bh=rQF7qGSg/94omtgZ6LpaVptP+RQqLAhfkHn 8ahZLVc8=; b=YeBYXcpcVHCTc8Wl1ulffmOfUbjoEk774nThDSnHWbuolDoikV8 pTizuQAi/kGKIer8pdBr2arF/J+M4IhD7D3h65HneRxqzkN+Z63ktZQmqTDMD1Uj 7qAlXp13QeEhaIZiDo4Qx/opKqQ2zFAlNqt+Prnt3qmeymENeEJqPJ+41Xi0Y6qu WHy/2JRcf4hIkvqXEuso1pJyqqaMGxWetIKgsf3uqm2cF7I1JAOiAzfPY7sORl9o IVo7UPVxBoClZ+R7peRd3luBeb65R8wBcwbUcRzfEu0wLo9uVd4dMaX0ESOUMSoh S+wpURYArBDL/6diYvyHrS2x5zIOiiShj3g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTEp/sB6hLqg+8hVHIdRTAclBLukcB5r666+OHAPVnih8pQigWPaQJpq/VbLkcO5Tp 77KOOiPhmDHU3NTt3Y3aJLVEvEtGfZA5UHWxcjL5ys+j3s1a3w7T8+VRounqCqgzcgwJZd pQ+lGsV/wQvAB3dM8qI6VFNGijyFRiTTTZfpzRrExmtaGNuuWZI2PpmUNfl4z7KQtEs3hV zcVZp/IpXte9j68xAC+NYMfC9c65pIU+xJILOsBVre5W2bpee4uMNwDV0DGq/nAIymLBdi Fh/NwkQd9iF0f7Jlq/YlU4dR40a5FxdTL/DAK0wB0TwnkcJMvGHiRY4wN8qxYuhWgv37ng mt3M//ZAnRAhnwVW62ATN+CJlGcoRwCkh2J/9AGjJcLuAt0t4oYinriSVYMm5bof5JfZqE ihs8cB1sUOefdegYTS3ttgsK7yisjzodfg2iZDqN7ugwVOLzh7RlVPIsyRVDP4NtJW7IFQ RN93P035BuCfHZuFINkFUSN2J2mKdDGGU7hUPr/ENINCov2HO/V9tMnq8yHL0+VvpCBZ+C 6RnkwmSOBtIkP0TzU6F0cHvkeIoN12EVd8JCvKL/q7Rxw4+1MTxrHW3hjEmbK+cKdJvhqC gUGpNZ+fzAv6XAvMYloNFgBAzofEZN54a/daF0FoBK7Cg/2xUQNQh6QU0LiQ X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:53:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Gatla Vishweshwar Reddy , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] show-branch: convert per-branch flags to commit-slab In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:25:59 -0700") References: <20260717103454.62750-1-gatlavishweshwarreddy26@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:53:40 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Junio C Hamano writes: >> We've seen a strong uptick in threads that are obviously AI generated, >> only, and at times it just feels like one is merely talking to a prompt. >> This just doesn't scale well, as it leads to constant iterations and >> back and forth without much thinking being involved. So we require the >> other side to stop every once in a while and invest the necessary time, >> too. Otherwise the community will simply stop working, and that doesn't >> serve anyone well. >> >> Sorry if I came across as harsh. > > Thanks for saying this. > > When viewed in that light, what the v7 patch does is extremely > incoherent. It gives the impression of having been generated by an > automated assistant and sent without human oversight, or perhaps > drafted in a state of severe late-night exhaustion. For instance, > the commit message claims to have lifted 'max_revs' completely, yet > the proposed documentation updates still reference a hard limit of > 64. It also removes the local definition of 'UNINTERESTING', even > though the comment immediately above it still advises our future > selves to migrate to the shared definition eventually. > > It appears the automation was not used merely for structuring the > reply; the changes in the patch itself show signs of having been > generated and sent out without any human oversight X-<. By the way, the two items that follow 'For instance' above are mere examples. Addressing them alone will not suffice. Like you, I have no desire to interact with a human proxy sitting between an automated generator and the mailing list, relaying what the machine produced under the guise of having reviewed it, without understanding or thinking through the implications. We want to see changes designed from the ground up by human minds, not synthetic slop. It is fine to use automated assistants to proofread what you have produced yourself. To judge whether to adopt or discard their suggestions, you must possess a deeper understanding of the problem domain than the tools do. At the very least, to employ a 'human produces, machine assists' workflow, you must first compose the draft yourself before asking the tool to polish it, which inherently requires sufficient domain knowledge and forces you to think about the problem. In contrast, blindly relaying what the machine generated, while claiming to have reviewed it carefully, is something anyone can do without even realizing how superficial that review actually was. The 'machine generates, human reviews' model is fundamentally broken when compared to its converse. Pardon if this sounds even harsher.