> I was responding to the author of the comment I was responding to, who was anthropomorphizing the commit itself claiming that it did something.

Uh huh. The comment that you replied to is pretty much in line with the wider “patch does X to the code” which isn’t about anthropomorphizing. That’s the spin that you put on it.

It’s about as much anthrop. as saying that a falling piano crushed someone’s leg.

> We do it for usability and other reasons and one only needs to look at git itself to recognize that the original authors did not have usability in mind when designing it. What they built is incredibly powerful, but it's rare for usability and technical prowess to overlap.

It’s also rare to find commit message quality that is on the level of the regular contributors to that project. Which has nothing to do with how unfortunate the UX of the tool is.