| ▲ | PUSH_AX 3 hours ago |
| > Useless? So you never use “git annotate” or your IDE to see who wrote a line of code whose purpose puzzles you, and go to the commit message to see what they were trying to accomplish? Personally no, the code is the "truth". If I need more I'm going to open a dialog with the author, not spend time trying to interpret a 7 word commit message, "good" or otherwise. |
|
| ▲ | macintux 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The code can only convey what is being done (and then, in some cases, only superficially). It can't convey what decisions were made, what alternatives were discarded, what business motivations may have led to that code. And for old enough code, the author may not be available, or more likely doesn't remember. |
| |
| ▲ | PUSH_AX 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fine, but none of that is in a normal commit message, lets be real... | | |
| ▲ | mgfist an hour ago | parent [-] | | Which circles back to why it's important for leadership to tackle this | | |
| ▲ | PUSH_AX 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but not in the form of commit messages, the parent comment described things better suited to jira tickets, documentation etc. It feels like we're trying really hard to stretch the utility of commit messages here... | | |
| ▲ | macintux 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Mainly I was pushing back on: the code is the "truth" I don't feel that is an accurate statement for any complex system. | | |
| ▲ | PUSH_AX 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't like complex systems, and I work hard not to create them. | | |
| ▲ | mgfist 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sure but code can't capture everything. Maybe with enough comments I guess, but not code alone. For example, code won't tell you that this feature was timeboxed hence this edgecase was not supported |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wreath 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And what of the original author is not there anymore? |
| |
