[xp84]

Useless? So you never use “git annotate” or your IDE to see who wrote a line of code whose purpose puzzles you, and go to the commit message to see what they were trying to accomplish? This is invaluable to me as long as commit messages are clear.

As a manager, one of the first things I do is make sure that the PR titles (the PR text becomes the commit messages in squash-merging workflows) at minimum begin with a ticket number. Then we can later read both the intention and the commentary on it.

[alt_422568]

> you never use “git annotate” or your IDE to see who wrote a line of code whose purpose puzzles you, and go to the commit message to see what they were trying to accomplish? This is invaluable to me as long as commit messages are clear.

You're thinking like someone with a mature understanding of version control. Plenty of developers seem set on going their whole careers using git like beginners.

[PUSH_AX]

That sounds clever until you remember tools exist to solve actual problems.

Treating simple workflows as inferior is like saying a carpenter is amateurish for not using every attachment in the workshop. Some teams don't have enough upstream issues that they need to lean on git in the way you do maybe?

[alt_422568]

Think of a major FOSS project in a technically challenging domain. Every single one of them insists on proper version-control discipline. [0,1,2,3,4]

If enough of the following apply strongly enough to your project:

* Very small codebase

* A one-person project, or a very small team where everyone can be expected know the entire codebase and you don't bother with code-review

* Not doing anything technically challenging

* You don't care about the other advantages of disciplined version-control, such as the ability to meaningfully revert a commit, or to more easily associate a bug with a feature

then sure, you can get away with sloppy use of version control, or even no version control at all. The same applies to various other aspects of software development. Skillful structuring of code doesn't matter in a very small codebase. The drawbacks of dynamically typed languages aren't a real problem in small codebases. Documentation might not be worth writing up. The list goes on. It makes sense that there's generally less call for the various aspects of the 'craft' of software development in such projects. The same applies to other disciplines. You don't bother with CFD modelling for your paper airplane.

I'm not convinced there's really any upside to the sloppy approach though. Developers with the skill to write decent commit messages (plenty of developers lack this), and otherwise make skillful use of version control, tend to make it a habit and always apply the disciplined approach. It's like NASA's old rules for software: The rules act like the seat-belt in your car: initially they are perhaps a little uncomfortable, but after a while their use becomes second-nature and not using them becomes unimaginable. [5][6]

> Treating simple workflows as inferior is like saying a carpenter is amateurish for not using every attachment in the workshop

I see it differently: what I'm proposing is developing mastery over a core tool of the craft, and applying it consistently in our work. We'd expect the same from a competent carpenter or cook.

[0] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=log

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...

[2] https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git/log

[3] https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commits/master/src/hotspot

[4] https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commits/master/

[5] https://spinroot.com/gerard/pdf/P10.pdf The Power of Ten - Rules for Developing Safety Critical Code

[6] https://tigerstyle.dev/

[PUSH_AX]

> I see it differently: what I'm proposing is developing mastery over a core tool of the craft, and applying it consistently in our work.

This is classic dogmatics over pragmatics.

The carpenter understands how to use every tool, they are just pragmatic about its use.

[alt_422568]

Again, in my experience, that isn't it. It's like NASA's rules. People who write garbage commit messages and have a chaotic and unconsidered version control workflow, generally lack the skill to do otherwise. As they lack version control skills, they haven't had the opportunity to internalise the benefits. Those with the skill to make disciplined use of version control tend to do so on every project, as the effort required is modest and is repaid even on minor projects.

We're talking about low-hanging fruit here. It's not like adopting the MISRA C programming style, which really does severely restrict the programmer.

[PUSH_AX]

Becoming a pragmatic engineer takes time, you’ll get there one day. Best of luck.

[PUSH_AX]

> Useless? So you never use “git annotate” or your IDE to see who wrote a line of code whose purpose puzzles you, and go to the commit message to see what they were trying to accomplish?

Personally no, the code is the "truth". If I need more I'm going to open a dialog with the author, not spend time trying to interpret a 7 word commit message, "good" or otherwise.

[agateau]

The code is the present truth, the commit messages can inform you about how it got turned into this truth. Interestingly, I recently wrote a short article about this: https://agateau.com/2026/on-commit-messages/

[cratermoon]

Your argument on conventional commits is something I've come to agree with. There are even tools that can generate release notes from conventional commits, and they are premised on the same mistake.

[macintux]

The code can only convey what is being done (and then, in some cases, only superficially). It can't convey what decisions were made, what alternatives were discarded, what business motivations may have led to that code.

And for old enough code, the author may not be available, or more likely doesn't remember.

[PUSH_AX]

Fine, but none of that is in a normal commit message, lets be real...

[mgfist]

Which circles back to why it's important for leadership to tackle this

[PUSH_AX]

Yes, but not in the form of commit messages, the parent comment described things better suited to jira tickets, documentation etc.

It feels like we're trying really hard to stretch the utility of commit messages here...

[rightofcourse]

Yes, we are on our third ticketing system on our team with dead refs to old issues. PR without a commit documenting why you need a change does not normally get approved and helps a lot also at present and future review time. Lots of value for new devs to see how thinking went and why something exist and not something else etc.

Documenting it also forces people to think why they are adding a change in the first place. Code added without purpose becomes dead weight and tech debt.

[cratermoon]

You'll at least need the discipline to include the ticket ID in the message. Links to documentation are ok, but they will likely rot and even if they don't the content may change such that it no longer accurately reflects the commit changes.

[account42]

So rather than commit messages that stay in the repo you want the information in a place where its lost by the next buck tracker migration?

[macintux]

Mainly I was pushing back on: the code is the "truth"

I don't feel that is an accurate statement for any complex system.

[wreath]

And what of the original author is not there anymore?

[PUSH_AX]

The world will not end. I’ll get there.