On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Paul Louden <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess my question is, do we want to ask people to *try* for useful commit > messages, or do we want to say "if we can edit them later, anything is > okay?"
I'm not sure if the latter would happen since changing the commit message also creates noise (and you basically publish a "I did it wrong" message, and nobody likes to be wrong, right?). I'm using git-svn a lot and that allows me to review every change before actually committing it to the main repository. Basically, my current workflow usually looks like this: - create a feature branch - work, do several commits - when done, rebase the feature branch, then squash it to a single commit - review the change, sometimes even on a different branch. Since it's a single commit I can easily amend the commit message of that commit until I'm satisfied. It did happen that I amended the commit message several times until I was satisfied. It even did happen that I noticed issues with the commit during that phase (like forgotten files for which using a different branch is quite helpful), so I can fix that. - dcommit it. I don't know of any numbers but I'm under the impression that quite a lot of committers use git-svn (or mirror with another DVCS). And if you use such a tool I don't see much excuses for making lazy commits. I for myself tend to rather make a commit the next day than to make a broken one (though I'm not always sucessful at that). - Dominik
