From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.158]) (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 380A1391E52 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:09:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781078945; cv=none; b=rbPGWq9VMKYYW2cvgDuhkWCIHrjV94NKkbkgbm2K5k8fTmCPsAA5B30IDYi1DFq4QUjqIz5BfxHJPu/QfTn+HjPtpH/CSXEPAlH0nDulwqmkrMfFAL/o5kiKVY23cZTx9zwi4vyV/w/m+dixl460/tdWr4Zmc/tE0PeXHm2l+hY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781078945; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xBr+fvyCYlFYkSnv+I19TNu0fCFpvPT2glGc8Ex7PEM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NBZKn4wqfwA24fPoqkZufjatsDYTXmExtTF+xA+N2RszgbcNVOaj+rBrHL2lBHss77yk1KjoWzvPor8Pvv4VyheFMNc8JRiiJ1HxINnfe8VSK9zCb5Ru8pzlF9hagDqF0TQbnvFKGYr1VqFqJQrQFz/Uo9/BJBORlKbjTVTKmUE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=GGNf6DK3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=N07ko+qx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="GGNf6DK3"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="N07ko+qx" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4319E7A007A; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 04:09:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-04 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 Jun 2026 04:09:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-transfer-encoding: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=1781078942; x=1781165342; bh=FjLGIKBaQStWyPS6VZ3iKQjinVvh2MZ4Zzq0aswk8xg=; b= GGNf6DK39cjmCC8P9kAD8nOil8J9VTtiae6tr96g6gmRswwo0ukd4mOwWeMPplBm T/Z5atBKnRddAicOKxRlliWwNk7BT8tYqeVhHQuSH/UnBR/+FAmBa67jnQ0hHEDh GC6bj8MixsMqFuOhi24Vc7hyePv0n+4hLAPtsc+2HUpxcrBwahZTlF3By7Tbect4 urq2Q0TH6oh4ZnaX37zUUPKSQ03QvCfdrixvpM9AD7ipmwLhu/VAAMRCmg3IoE3j FFQne3c6daN0JYngs/hPMGt9U48ILpF7E5k46RDKG87QFooawTx6Beoe3ixjgPi/ 3UB3bg/t1jOfxqraplhJ/g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :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=fm1; t=1781078942; x= 1781165342; bh=FjLGIKBaQStWyPS6VZ3iKQjinVvh2MZ4Zzq0aswk8xg=; b=N 07ko+qxfJvzaDDzhPRU7xfp6ZdC4ahyd2H57kOiNHjUMGy74wqGnRptMHoYoZuk2 z/dOP/193i9R3uNpzXbQp7LpUV68Jw42vXICudyCcrIZiliMenkWfZGV4raH8JCK G90XlxQfICRpF2waqzRIACGGAcyVwwOWNOC0M0YyFrpATVNg9PmeBxo2lDcTX7O/ bcrNrEN+JezLp+Ju5Z+rJZ3WdiRFP0kuSdpz/JNslZ9O8Kt7/QzYWiMMGnnZFc8E YNJr8eSXlnJ+ak0oMCDOuDf58LkRNy5Vn0Qpj1eDH0sEqENL3GMgNUJX0kZsfxmm ppMQeTlnVmSkC6Zjg4PJA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTGyr3YfSBB2JqeFQypAiElOQPv9PPulUcjpRop3WeWLGrV/ToXBRjOmFG43qeWUYx zGmmjJsqskuMlvwo7QNmW3ub36b+MrchgCXqJOfZRW1alWnSaZyVN6WJ//0kZaiLj5FP92 APk4ZVGqebWOb8pu7uxWhyfi1b5ci5i8wsVIAdONUxVc18ynhY/KxraNnItsEUbTMwgYz3 RcQ0sVlGK1SbyiHHWkXXdLk/LsfyJQ5N3S0LFM0u5Pnt5p07CRVOjZ8B6+/iMa71YsTSwS p0w3BirFF8kfsZ0+zFTdML9tzaDw+nA+P3EPXhzT0pnnDhPth51a9oYENpgsa9InLIKlY2 OrQjc8zDiGpRT0HATWRQRibiJEtnmDeYZefXVlw7kGCFnyxcObPB2b6dHy8WNPIIsPGukW 1gtY+GQHlJeszCcXQ0HDzTZFRdxku0DiD1A1J4PnKPDQMtYTwg4HPQUXDkY6T0HfyNH4Bj U6zTt1E2Lacj1W50c9x0q5E0eejnGXP1JN20fgW/QaGj0rUbMkAg0m8SPlD157TsDNYWhN Bq04sPg3JO2caDSWS+A7nF4kTHt6tQTQNRdwd0/Z1BHjx0XSJ8zFsPsKNRRbi1HlNO8skx C44/ah2xcv6+PpWx1fS3SfqjUXz9CRA8eZjYMmlljEm06pzbf0pFOPJjOZMA X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 04:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 46cde93c (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:08:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:08:51 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Jeff King Cc: Tamir Duberstein , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] describe: limit default ref iteration to tags Message-ID: References: <20260608-describe-tag-ref-scope-v2-1-256fd36dca32@gmail.com> <20260609110957.GB1509396@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260609110957.GB1509396@coredump.intra.peff.net> On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 07:09:57AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 07:32:14PM -0700, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > > > The benchmark checkout had 120,532 refs, of which 330 were tags. With > > `$repo` naming the checkout, `$commit` an exactly tagged commit, and > > `$parent` and `$this` the two binaries, I ran: > > > > hyperfine --warmup 3 --runs 15 \ > > --command-name parent \ > > '$parent -C $repo describe --exact-match $commit' \ > > --command-name 'this commit' \ > > '$this -C $repo describe --exact-match $commit' > > > > The results were: > > > > Benchmark 1: parent > > Time (mean ± σ): 171.7 ms ± 18.5 ms [User: 23.9 ms, System: 133.6 ms] > > Range (min … max): 142.3 ms … 198.3 ms 15 runs > > > > Benchmark 2: this commit > > Time (mean ± σ): 9.9 ms ± 1.1 ms [User: 3.3 ms, System: 4.7 ms] > > Range (min … max): 8.8 ms … 13.1 ms 15 runs > > > > Summary > > this commit ran > > 17.35 ± 2.63 times faster than parent > > > > Both revisions were built with -O3, -mcpu=native, and ThinLTO using > > Apple clang 21.0.0 on macOS 26.5. The machine was a MacBook Pro > > (Mac16,6) with a 16-core Apple M4 Max (12 performance and four > > efficiency cores) and 128 GB RAM. > > This patch looks fine to me, but let me pick a nit for a minute, because > I think there is a broader conversation to be had. > > Given the discussion in earlier rounds and sibling topics, I assume the > commit message here was AI-generated. And it's OK in the sense that it > is describing what happened and I assume is entirely accurate. But as a > human reader, it feels so much more verbose than what I'd expect, as it > is full of semi-irrelevant details. Why set --warmup and --runs? Why > bother with --command-name, which just means you have to show the > commands separately anyway? Is the amount of RAM in the machine > important for this test? Surely it could be if it was absurdly tiny, but > in general, no, I would not expect it to be. I agree. Earlier this week I also drafted a message that was going down this angle, but I think I didn't end up sending it to the mailing list. Or at least I'm not able to find it anymore. To me the biggest problem is not the verbosity, even though it _is_ overly verbose. The bigger problem though is the incoherence of the story that the commit message is trying to tell where it jumps around randomly. It almost feels like rambling to me, and that makes it extremely hard to follow the narrative and figure out what the message even wants to tell the reader in the first place. [snip] > I dunno. I am not trying to pick apart your commit in particular, but am > more interested in the broader use of AI commit messages going forward. > This kind of verbosity is quite common in the output (from my limited > experience), and I think creates more work for reviewers. Should we be > expecting contributors to make things more concise before submitting > (either manually or through prompting)? Or do people even agree that the > shorter version is preferable? I could be the only one. I very much think that we should and even have to expect that contributors adapt, because if we don't we will basically reinforce whatever AI is doing right now and increase the load on reviewers even more. I also think that we should reserve the right to reject a patch series completely in case we notice that we're basically just talking to a middleman that sits between an AI prompt and us (please note that I don't refer to this patch series specifically, this is more of a general statement). My assumption is that this will become more important as AI gets established in more workflows. The number of patch series that look sane on the surface but that are utter garbage will very likely increase quite significantly going forward. Patrick