4 ms·
I would strongly disagree with it, because it misses the opportunity for using the commit message as a sanity check. Accidents happen, sometimes I select the wr
by forgotmypw17 3y ago
I would strongly disagree with it, because it misses the opportunity for using the commit message as a sanity check. Accidents happen, sometimes I select the wrong file for the commit, or include changes I didn't intend.
Even for the most minor commits, including "improve comment formatting ; utils.pl" allows skimming that message and comparing it to the actual commit.
It also helps me be aware of what I'm doing, pointing and calling style.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoTo nitpick, the git commit already contains information about which files are affected; adding it explicitly to the commit message does not add value and, like comments, may be incorrect. I like the angular style guide's concept of "scope", like, what category or module of the application does it apply to. That said, an "utils" file is often a smell in code organization.
- forgotmypw17 3y ago> the git commit already contains information about which files are affected Right, but this is not always the same as the files which I intended to be affected, and the matching of the two is the sanity check here. utils was just an example filename.
- joshka 3y ago> the git commit already contains information about which files are affected; Contra: while this is true, it's worth considering how 'information about which files are effected' scales when examining the history of a repo. A commit message that simplifies and clarifies the intent is more useful than one that requires a future reader to read each git commit in full to understand the effect.