Comment by OjotCewIo

> this stinks: “This transparency transforms git history from a record of changes into a record of intent, creating a new form of documentation that bridges human reasoning and machine implementation.”

That's where I stopped reading. If they needed "AI" for turning their git history into a record of intent ("transparency"), then they had been doing it all wrong, previously. Git commit messages have always been a "form of documentation that bridges human reasoning" -- namely, with another human's (the reader's) reasoning.

If you don't walk your reviewer through your patch, in your commit message, as if you were teaching them, then you're doing it wrong.

Left a bad taste in my mouth.