That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that the maintainer now has better commit messages, but there is still a need to go back and produce documentation for undocumented code with inscrutable commit messages. e.g. doing better now does not undo prior damage
Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim
by asojfdowgh on Saturday July 09, 2022 @01:53AM
(#32032219)
ok, how?
ok, why can that method that you choose not be applied to nim?
Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim
by haxscramper on Saturday July 09, 2022 @03:35AM
(#32032783)
On how: The "method" is to just respect the future contributors from the start, instead of waiting for ten years until someone tells you to write better messages.
Why can't it be applied: no idea, writing sensible commit messages seems like a basic necessity if your goal is sustainable project development, but that's just me
Re:NimSkull: A Hard Fork of Nim
by asojfdowgh on Saturday July 09, 2022 @05:53AM
(#32033473)
ah, the time machine method then
Well good luck hard-forking backwards into the past to re-write commit messages.
Assuming unreasonable, isn't it unreasonable to expect someone to completely break git history for everyone, and or invent time travel?
Seems to be an absurd amount of condemnation over a mistake that did far less than hurting no-one