2 ms·
> Actually I think it is the other way around - since very few people would ever read commit histories - maybe if something really bad happened and we need to t
by jurgenburgen 2mo ago
> Actually I think it is the other way around - since very few people would ever read commit histories - maybe if something really bad happened and we need to trace the audit trail ~once a month or something per team.
It’s worse than that IMO. In over 10 years I’ve yet to have seen a team that even knows how to rebase, asking them to investigate commit logs or bisecting would be like teaching a cat to bark. Insisting on “good commits” (or even worse, conventional commits which is a poor solution to the wrong problem) is just adding bureaucracy where it’s least needed.
- seer 2mo agoSurprisingly enough I’ve encountered both kinds - people who don’t care a lot and despise any “mandatory commit rules”, and people who care _too much_ spending company time making their commits “perfect” which then nobody reads. I think it’s like with code formatters - now we have a tool that does the tedious thing on its own and unlocks human creativity where it is warranted… at least in the ideal case.