> You seem to be confusing the construction of system prompts with "training".

I'm not. What part are you having a hard time following?

> But getting back to reality, today no coding assistant supports building system prompts from commit history. This means it doesn't. This is a statement of fact, not an hypothetical.

This is a non-sequiteur. Just because coding assistants don't support building system prompts from commit history doesn't mean LLMs and coding assistants aren't trained on commit messages as part of the massive number repositories they're trained on.

What part are you having a hard time following?

	▲	Jarwain 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> As a side note, it's becoming increasingly important to write down this info in places where LLMs can access it with the right context. Unfortunately commit history is not one of those spots. This is the comment that spawned this tragedy of miscommunication. My interpretation of this comment is that no current programming agents/llm tooling utilize commit history as part of their procedure for building context of a codebase for programming. It is not stating that it Cannot, nor is it making any assertion on whether these assistants can or cannot be Trained on commit history, nor any assertion about whether commit history is included in training datasets. All its saying is that these agents currently do not automatically _use_ commit history when finding/building context for accomplishing a task.