Re: [PATCH v7] show-branch: convert per-branch flags to commit-slab

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

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> Hi Gatla,
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 04:04:54PM +0530, Gatla Vishweshwar Reddy wrote:
>> Hi Patrick,
>> 
>> I am a real person. I used AI help for structuring reply in that thread. I understand that is not
>> appropriate here and will write my own from now on.
>
> Okay. Using AI is fine to help you out, but the human-focussed bits
> should really rather be written in a way that it feels like we're
> talking to a human. We're a community here, and when you see text that
> is so obviously written by an AI it can get very frustrating eventually.
>
> 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-<.