Re: [PATCH v3] object-name: explain why <rev>~N fails in a shallow clone

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> ... part of the review is also the conceptual direction
> that we are moving towards. And that can only really be reviewed by
> someone who is familiar with the project overall.

Well said.

> What I would very much like to avoid is reducing our standards just
> because "carving in to AI is inevitable". I've heard that argument way
> too often by now, and I don't think that it's a reasonable stance to
> have. It is very much not "inevitable" that a project must move faster.

Yes, I very much agree with this.  There was a release few cycles
ago where I blindly trusted AI generated reviews too much, allowed
topics without human reviews to be merged to 'next' and 'master',
that resulted in quite a few immediate reverts.  I learned from that
episode and am basing heavily on human reviews the decision to mark
the topic for 'next' these days.

Thanks.