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?
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.
I don't think you understand the issue you're commenting on.
It's irrelevant whether you can inject commit history in a prompt.
The whole point is that today's support for coding assistants does not support this source of data, whereas comments in source files and even README.md and markdown files in ./docs are supported out of the box.
If you rely on commit history to provide context to your team members, once they start using LLMs this context is completely ignored and omitted from any output. This means you've been providing context that's useles and doesn't have any impact on future changes.
If you actually want to help the project, you need to pay attention on whether your contributions are impactful. Dumping comments into what amounts to /dev/null has no impact whatsoever. Requiring your team to go way out of their way to include in each prompt extra context from a weird source that may or may not be relevant is a sure way to ensure no one uses it.
(we certainly did with our company internal tool, but then we're all seniors who only use autocomplete and query mechanisms other than the impractical chat concept)
