News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim by dmos62 on Friday July 08, 2022 @04:10AM (#32024198)
> unraveling mysteries of the commit messages that were written with this attitude https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/pull/19211#issuecomment-9859...

Curious to know what your vision of commit messages is. My commit messages look exactly like the excerpt in your linked issue: they describe what has been done.

Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim by masklinn on Friday July 08, 2022 @07:13AM (#32025612)
> Curious to know what your vision of commit messages is.

Not GP, but the postgres project is a pretty good example of what I strive for:

- a title explaining what the commit does (possibly expanding into the body if details would be useful)

- plus the body explains the background for the change (the why), ideally at all levels of resolution e.g. if it’s a 1 line fix to something deep inside the bowels try to trace the path from the original high-level report or issue, then why it was fixed where it was (especially if it took ages to track down and / or decide)

- and if useful or necessary, discussions of the implementation details / options / considerations

If there’s a mailing list thread, or a bug tracker issue, it should be included, but it should not be necessary: IME it’s way more common for the log than the bug tracker to survive the sands of time, because converting history from one VCS to the next is generally relatively easy.

Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim by benibela on Friday July 08, 2022 @05:10AM (#32024668)
That reminds me of another project. Whatever you do, do not write the commit messages like that, and your are doing great: https://github.com/BeRo1985/pasvulkan/commits/master
Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim by scotty79 on Friday July 08, 2022 @07:29AM (#32025720)
Not everybody treats fixing software just as an excuse for writing detailed flowery diary of the development process itself consisting entirely of artisanal, handcrafted git commit messages.

Some people just fix software to fix software and for them the whole utility of git is to be able to see how the code looked earlier or even just keeping it in case they ever want to know that. They don't write commit messages because they don't read commit messages because they'd rather read code than prose. Trying to figure out what someone meant when they wrote the comment is sometimes harder than reading the code change itself. And if you need to delve deep into the prose here's the ticket number with all the words that were exchanged that lead to this change.

Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim by dmos62 on Friday July 08, 2022 @06:20AM (#32025176)
Someone's doing work.
Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim by WesolyKubeczek on Friday July 08, 2022 @07:06AM (#32025557)
My commit messages:

Fixes

Fixes

Fixes

Fix the fix

Frstegdghdsgsffff

More work

Fixes

Fixes

Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim by haxscramper on Friday July 08, 2022 @04:16AM (#32024253)
Commits message guidelines are a part of the contribution guidelines and are available in the documentation (linked in the GitHub page). Concrete application of said guidelines can be seen in the commit message history.