| ▲ | magicalhippo 7 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
> The bet is that automating the "what" frees up your commit message to carry the "why" instead. Right. For my work I'm not sure that bet would pay off. For (a contrived) example, say I see my colleague has changed a calculation from using
to
What has changed is pretty obvious. However without further input or context I can't tell why it changed. So I have to ask my colleague which informs me that the item_price field might be zero if it's not available, but the totals are always accurate.Well, if he'd written that in a comment above, or at least in the commit message, I wouldn't have to disturb him and wait for him to respond. That's the sort of issues I struggle with the most by far when it comes to browsing old commit history. Anyway, just my 2 cents, perhaps it's different for others with other types of work. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mandeepsng 6 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
That example is spot on and I won't pretend the tool solves it — it can see the field name changed, not that item_price can be zero. Honestly it's made me think the more useful thing is a pre-commit prompt: "this change looks non-obvious, add a comment?" rather than a post-push summary. Different problem entirely. Good 2 cents. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||