Programming

17417 readers

84 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

191

Git grumpy: Torvalds complains of passive voice in merge commit messages (www.neowin.net)

submitted 1 month ago by AnActOfCreation@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Linus Torvalds expressed frustration over the use of passive voice in merge commit messages, preferring active and imperative language instead.

He provided an example of how commit messages should be rewritten for clarity and consistency across the project.

Torvalds noted that while it's not a major issue, it does add extra work when he has to rewrite messages to match his preference.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 149 points 1 month ago (13 children)

I read his message. He didn't seem grumpy or frustrated to me; just encouraging folks to use a certain style that's already in wide use, for reduced noise and better consistency.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 71 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

The message:

"I try to make my merge commit messages be somewhat "cohesive", and so I often edit the pull request language to match a more standard layout and language. It's not a big deal, and often it's literally just about whitespace so that we don't have fifteen different indentation models and bullet syntaxes. I generally do it as I read through the text anyway, so it's not like it makes extra work for me.

But what does make extra work is when some maintainers use passive voice, and then I try to actively rewrite the explanation (or, admittedly, sometimes I just decide I don't care quite enough about trying to make the messages sound the same).

So I would ask maintainers to please use active voice, and preferably just imperative."

Giving an example of a bad commit message, Torvalds provided this example: "In this pull request, the Xyzzy driver error handling was fixed to avoid a NULL pointer dereference." He believes this should have been written as follows: "This fixes a NULL pointer dereference in ..."

[–] Hazzard@lemm.ee 52 points 1 month ago

Honestly, makes sense, the active voice version is just... more efficient and easier to parse quickly.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)