3 ms·

ok, but did they have to make commit message required, or is there a way to disable it? i think of git as checkpoints, nothing more. the day i have to explore h

by journal 11mo ago

ok, but did they have to make commit message required, or is there a way to disable it? i think of git as checkpoints, nothing more. the day i have to explore history is the day i quit.

landr0id 11mo ago
totally. the fact git-quicksave isn't a standard command that commits with an "Autosave" message is pretty short-sighted.
- imiric 11mo ago
  This thread makes me weep for software engineering.
  - landr0id 11mo ago
    If it wasn't obvious I am not serious. On the contrary I'm actively making contributions to jujutsu (none involving a quicksave command... yet)
    - imiric 11mo ago
      Poe's law strikes again. But really, there is no way to tell you weren't serious, considering the commenter you replied to most certainly is. I mean, look at this abomination: https://github.com/denys-olleik/alternative-accounting/commits/main/ https://github.com/denys-olleik/alternative-accounting/commi...
pxc 11mo ago
> the day i have to explore history is the day i quit. Huh? I do that all the time, and it's really useful. What is difficult or problematic about it?
- tazjin 11mo ago
  One particular cynical reading of that could be "the day I'm held responsible for my code is the day I quit".
- ziml77 11mo ago
  I think I can understand it to a degree. If the code is well-documented (with comments and design docs) then there really should not be a need to look at the prior state of the code. In an ideal universe, the only things that should matter are what the code currently does and what is being requested that it do new or differently. That's about as charitable as I can be to their take.
chanux 11mo ago
To understand your point of view, is this because you have seen very bad commit messages (I have too!) like "fixed" repeating 700 times and now come to believe it's a pointless thing in the grand scheme of things anyway?

3 ms·

ok, but did they have to make commit message required, or is there a way to disable it? i think of git as checkpoints, nothing more. the day i have to explore h

by journal 11mo ago

ok, but did they have to make commit message required, or is there a way to disable it? i think of git as checkpoints, nothing more. the day i have to explore history is the day i quit.

landr0id 11mo ago
totally. the fact git-quicksave isn't a standard command that commits with an "Autosave" message is pretty short-sighted.
- imiric 11mo ago
  This thread makes me weep for software engineering.
  - landr0id 11mo ago
    If it wasn't obvious I am not serious. On the contrary I'm actively making contributions to jujutsu (none involving a quicksave command... yet)
    - imiric 11mo ago
      Poe's law strikes again. But really, there is no way to tell you weren't serious, considering the commenter you replied to most certainly is. I mean, look at this abomination: https://github.com/denys-olleik/alternative-accounting/commits/main/ https://github.com/denys-olleik/alternative-accounting/commi...
pxc 11mo ago
> the day i have to explore history is the day i quit. Huh? I do that all the time, and it's really useful. What is difficult or problematic about it?
- tazjin 11mo ago
  One particular cynical reading of that could be "the day I'm held responsible for my code is the day I quit".
- ziml77 11mo ago
  I think I can understand it to a degree. If the code is well-documented (with comments and design docs) then there really should not be a need to look at the prior state of the code. In an ideal universe, the only things that should matter are what the code currently does and what is being requested that it do new or differently. That's about as charitable as I can be to their take.
chanux 11mo ago
To understand your point of view, is this because you have seen very bad commit messages (I have too!) like "fixed" repeating 700 times and now come to believe it's a pointless thing in the grand scheme of things anyway?