4 ms·
I usually start with being aggressive about people not squashing commits. I think it's bad form. I also find shame works, as well as blocking merges when review
by optimuspaul 7y ago
I usually start with being aggressive about people not squashing commits. I think it's bad form. I also find shame works, as well as blocking merges when reviewing when commit messages provide no value. Could also start a swear jar of sorts, the offender puts a dollar in whenever they push a commit with a useless message... and use the proceeds for charity rather than something that benefits the team.
- l0b0 7y agoThis requires an existing buy-in from the team. How do you establish that buy-in in the first place? I know trying to be a good citizen isn't enough, because the worst offenders simply aren't interested in the revision history.
- optimuspaul 7y agoGreat question I don't have a solid answer to. Due to my seniority I tend to either be the lead or act as the lead for teams. It is easier for me to reason with the team to buy into these kind of things. The worst offenders will tend to be weeded out over time either by changing their ways or leaving. I don't have much sympathy for them if they can't see how their actions affect others. A team has no place for a rogue agent.