4 ms·

"All commits should have a message and commit messages should be explanatory." This is an actual process in my group at the company I work for. Process doesn'

"All commits should have a message and commit messages should be explanatory." This is an actual process in my group at the company I work for. Process doesn't have to be heavy and invasive. And what's the alternative? Zero process? Everybody has to "wing it" all the time? I can't see any possibility for a perverse environment there!

btilly 14y ago
Who defines what "explanatory" means? And what is the resolution if there is a disagreement? I, personally, am happy with a commit message like, Refactoring needed before #12345 can happen. I've said what I was doing, and why, and presumably in your ticket system there is a ticket 12345 that has more detailed explanation. Other programmers will disagree. "Explanatory" means different things to different people, and complex arguments can erupt. (Conversely if your commit essay lacks a concise first line to show up in blame, is that explanatory? Should you always have a ticket #?) Furthermore there is a type of person who enjoys asserting power through language lawyering. That kind of person will see that policy as a golden opportunity to acquire influence, even though the cost may be unnecessary conflict to little point. If such a person manages to assert control of a process element like that, you can easily get a type of teamicide that drives away good developers who don't want to deal with the BS of figuring out whether their essay was good enough to avoid an email lecture. As for the alternative, I thought I was clear on that. Large groups cannot work without process, small groups can mostly get by on common sense. The imperfections of processes do not change their necessity in many cases. But if you, personally, do not enjoy dealing with process, then you should find opportunities to work in more congenial small groups.

btilly 14y ago

Who defines what "explanatory" means? And what is the resolution if there is a disagreement? I, personally, am happy with a commit message like, Refactoring needed before #12345 can happen. I've said what I was doing, and why, and presumably in your ticket system there is a ticket 12345 that has more detailed explanation. Other programmers will disagree. "Explanatory" means different things to different people, and complex arguments can erupt. (Conversely if your commit essay lacks a concise first line to show up in blame, is that explanatory? Should you always have a ticket #?) Furthermore there is a type of person who enjoys asserting power through language lawyering. That kind of person will see that policy as a golden opportunity to acquire influence, even though the cost may be unnecessary conflict to little point. If such a person manages to assert control of a process element like that, you can easily get a type of teamicide that drives away good developers who don't want to deal with the BS of figuring out whether their essay was good enough to avoid an email lecture. As for the alternative, I thought I was clear on that. Large groups cannot work without process, small groups can mostly get by on common sense. The imperfections of processes do not change their necessity in many cases. But if you, personally, do not enjoy dealing with process, then you should find opportunities to work in more congenial small groups.