There's no reason that an LLM couldn't (or isn't) being trained on commit messages.
No difference between a git index and any other binary data (like video).
No difference between a git index and any other binary data (like video).
You are arguing that it could. Hypotheticals.
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.
If you post context in commit messages, it is not used. If you dump a markdown file in the repo, it is used automaticaly.
What part are you having a hard time understanding?
I'm not. What part are you having a hard time following?
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?
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.
For example:
>The GitHub MCP Server connects AI tools directly to GitHub's platform. This gives AI agents, assistants, and chatbots the ability to read repositories and code files, manage issues and PRs, analyze code, and automate workflows. All through natural language interactions.