[residentfoam]

In a professional context (and not only), one would think that this should be the normal expected good practice. But unfortunately, that is not the case.

It is so surprising (well not really) to see how, in most cases, developers put so little to close to zero effort in writing proper commit messages and more in general to have a clean commit history. They simply don't care and you keep seeing garbage commits with non-sense to close to empty message and description. Sadly enough this is seen as normal and just accepted.

Every single team I have been working with from small to large organizations I always had to pick up on the "write proper commit history" fight. And even after extensive explanations on why you should do that, people simply don't care and they keep pushing stuff like: "fix", "updated class z" and stuff like that.

Commit history does not seem to be part of the review process.

Sometimes it is just so depressing to see how so unprofessional software engineers are.

[ImaCake]

If it makes you feel better, biologists are often no better. Our equivalent to git commits is labelling tubes and keeping little excel databases of what has gone where. Often databases stop being updated or people give their tubes esoteric labels that are meaningless to those who look at them a year later. As a research assistant in a large lab, I discovered blood tubes with literally no labelling, and often spent hours searching for samples in the labyrinth of freezers in that lab. It is also not uncommon for papers to be retracted because the original authors lost the raw data!