I don’t understand what you mean. I’m suggesting that China could be making a big deal of old news now that they are offering a viable alternative to Intel chips. Possibly to drum up more business globally, or to have an excuse to ban Intel chips domestically.

It could also be to make that threat in the face of increasing trade war escalation from the United States, as a sort of “watch what you’re doing” warning.

Probably just posturing in preparation for trade war escalation or threats around banning Intel chips now that they’re ready to take on those markets. https://www.ft.com/content/5511d73a-1ada-4884-a559-681502300e4f

I basically stole your comment but made a worse version. On this note, though, there’s sometimes value in using words like “fix” or other kinds of tagging or consistent formatting in the sense that you can do a meta-analysis of the repo history to look at trends (like the ratio of fixes to feature work) over time.

Issue tracking software obviates that, somewhat, but having that info embedded in the repo history lets you go further and look at which files have the most fixes etc.

Existing tools out there sometimes do this exact thing, but it can be manually done as well

Knowing you fixed a bug is minimal information and usually covered by an issue reference in professional software development. I’d prefer to see the commit describing what the fix is actually doing to fix the bug.

This is not only irrelevant but it erases the nature of global contributions to free and open source software.

How many Russians, alone, contributed to these?