|
|
|
|
|
by AeroNotix
862 days ago
|
|
Essentially zero people read complex commit messages. Do with this information what you will. 9/10 the code already is documentation enough for what the code currently does, if you need to go back through history then look at the commits. The messages are generally noise. I've literally never cared _why_ someone made a change, I can see the change, I can see the effect of the old and new code. Rarely, if ever, has the thought process ever changed how I will interact with the code in question. If I am at the level of debugging or history spelunking that the _commit message_ is the thing that saves me - I've already lost and there are other glaring organizational or design issues that are the actual problem. |
|
I don't think that's true. I worked in support doing break/fix and outage response work at a large organization. That means constantly dipping into codebases I'm utterly unfamiliar with. Often there is complexity, un-obvious elements, previous incorrect attempts at a bugfix and so on, where understanding what the author intended can save literal hours of examination, experimentation etc.
> If I am at the level of debugging or history spelunking that the _commit message_ is the thing that saves me - I've already lost and there are other glaring organizational or design issues that are the actual problem.
This is kind of understanding what I mean, but there was no organizational or design failing here. This is just the nature of some work, I believe.