3 ms·
To me its beautiful, because it does what an issue tracking system does not do: it explains everything. Who, why, how, what, when. It is beautiful and simple do
by dijksterhuis 7y ago
To me its beautiful, because it does what an issue tracking system does not do: it explains everything. Who, why, how, what, when. It is beautiful and simple documentation.
Issue tracking typically revolves about the who, what, when - not why it happened, or how it was resolved.
This is why I believe that code can never be fully self-documenting. I can't understand why the code exists from reading it. All the floofy contextual stuff is missing, and commits like this help to explain the floofiness.
- tigershark 7y agoI think that you are not using properly the issue tracker. You absolutely need as a bare minimum the why and the reporter of the issue. When you do a blame you can easily see the issue id and open it with 1 click to understand why that code exists and who requested the change.
- dijksterhuis 7y agoBut now I have to go find the issue in a completely separate system, rather than just look at the commit message. It’s added complexity, which is something we strive to remove from our code.