After seeing people use the UI to commit to git I understand where all those - sorry: shitty - commit messages come from....
After seeing people use the UI to commit to git I understand where all those - sorry: shitty - commit messages come from....
After seeing people use the @jetbrains UI to commit to git I understand where all those - sorry: shitty - commit messages come from....
🙈
An improvement would already be to have a "Subject" line and the text box.
And have the subject line follow the Beams Rule.
Sonthat the first line of the commit message finishes the sentence
"When this commit is applied it will..."
And please: No longer than 56(?) characters (Unicode). Keep it short. You got the textbox to explain *why* in full length.
You're viewing a single thread.
@heiglandreas @jetbrains What if you want to use Conventional Commits instead of Beams? 😉
@ramsey Just: Don't.
The subject lines space is limited and should not be wasted for stuff that doesn't belong there.
Also the prime idea behind conventional commits is to add machine readable info.to the commit message: Fine. Do so. The commit.meysage can be as long as you want. Add it there. Keep the subject line to the human readable part.
Also: Creating changelogs from.git.commits is *not* what chamgelogs are there for.
Keep a changelog can help on *that* front.
@ramsey @jetbrains I'm still prepping a talk just about commit messages. The Why, How, what nots and Caveats - experiences from decades of code archeology... 🙈
Might just pitch that to the next CfPs....
Why should I put manual effort into separately maintaining a changelog and a semantically meaningful commit history? If I'm going to manually maintain atomic commits with useful commit messages, why would I want the contents of those messages to be substantially different from the content of the relevant bullets of the changelog?
@BatmanAoD Because they serve a different purpose.
Purely semantically a changelog is something different than a git log (otherwise it would be named a git log).
The changelog is more a log of merges that describes the main overview of new features and also bug fixes.
If I want to know the exact details why this line of code changed, *then* I look at the git log.
Having all atomic commitlogs in the changelog tells the user that you are too busy fixing code to give them a meaningful summary
@BatmanAoD Besides that a git log and a changelog have different target audiences.
The gitlog is intended for contributors of the project whereas the chamgelog is intended for users of the project.
And it helps the users if they get a summarized version of what changed for them.without having to.go.theough each commit amd decide for themselves whether and how that internal change affects the exteenal API and then their usage of it.
The gitlog is intended for contributors of the project whereas the chamgelog is intended for users of the project.
That makes sense to me.
I think I would still argue, however, that for projects using github, gitlab, or any similar forge with a built-in pull-request + code-review feature, there's very limited value in spending time crafting good commit messages in a feature branch. All information that you may be tempted to put there would be more visible and more useful either as code comments (which applies to all projects, not just GH) or as comments in the PR description or discussion. (I also think it's often better to just squash feature branches on merge than to try to maintain a clean branch history while the feature is in development.)
I do think that the commit messages that actually end up on your trunk are important; but, with the exception of the final PR merge (or squash) commit, developers should minimize the time spent writing or thinking about these commit messages.
The one context in which I find details in historical commit messages potentially useful is when using
git log -pto figure out when and why something changed. But even then, once I've found the relevant commit, looking up the PR to see if there was any discussion about the change in question is generally the next step; so again, having substantial detail in the commit message itself is unlikely to be helpful.@BatmanAoD Having done code archeology for over a decade now I can assure you that the issue with all the information that you need to understand why something was done has been discarded just shortly before due to moving to a different platform... Or something similar.
In any case: Having all the relevant data in one place and not scattered is a huge advantage.
@BatmanAoD And every developer should take the time to create a meaningful commit-message for the work they did. After all they invested a good amount of time into the code change, so why not proudly explain why they did it, what the challenges where and why they did it
*that* way?But on the other hand: It's documentation, so just drop it 🙈
Also: Code-comments are fine but tend to rot during code changes. The commit message is always tied to the commit.
It's not documentation, though. That's my point. It's a byproduct of the development cycle, not a place to store important information.
Commit messages are tied to a commit, sure, but why do you expect developers to have better discipline in writing commit messages than they have in updating code comments?
@BatmanAoD Because the commit message is a requirement when committing code. The code comment is sitting there and no one cares whether it'S updated.
And a certain schema of a commit message can be enforced. Git hooks for example can be used to make sure that the commit message looks a certain way, has a minimum length, is formatted according to declared standards. As one would do for code-style.
Then they still can just add garbage. But then you have a people problem that no tech will solve
@BatmanAoD And the commit message *is* documentation. It explains the "Why" making transparent why the code was written the way it is. If the commit message doesn'T reflect that, then you can also use
git commit -m "Fixed issues"But again: That is then a people problem that no tech will solve!
I mean, I've been doing this for over a decade too. If teams are losing data from their issue tracker or source forge, that's a deep problem and not something that can be ameliorated by writing better commit messages.
They are hard to discover… and hard to use.
Flippin' fantastic, that's exactly what I want out of my documentation tooling.
I absolutely agree it would be better if forge data were part of the repo itself rather than separate. But for teams that are using a forge in the standard way, they should rely on the forge for this sort of thing, rather than hide important information in an obscure git feature.
@BatmanAoD It all depends on the maturity of the toolchain... and the longtime availablility of the external dependencies 😁
And. I no longer trust them further than I can spit... 🙈
But YMMV 😁
@heiglandreas @ramsey @jetbrains see, that's exactly *why* IntelliJ shouldn't have a default opinion on this. Why wouldn't they choose these conventions? They're popular.
Instead they should have the safest possible default, and let you easily configure your own conventions. When possible, by reading git configuration for anything standard. Which is what IntelliJ already does.
We might be talking about two different sets of standard. What I would want Jetbrains to support out of the box is the "Subject line, Blank Line, Body" convention that is recommended in the git docs.
People can happily change the defaults to whatever they want but the recommendation from git should IMO be the default.
/cc @ramsey @jetbrains
@heiglandreas @ramsey @jetbrains how do you expect IntelliJ to support this? When if the second line isn't blank?
@clovis They already DO support it.
/cc @ramsey @jetbrains
@heiglandreas @ramsey @jetbrains what's the problem then 😅
Whether the users then use conventional commits, beams rule, opensavvy, whatever else they want is a completely different question.
And I am absolutely with you that Jetbrains should not favour one over the other.
/cc @ramsey @jetbrains