Mine look similar except the body is mostly "the X was doing Y, but it should've been doing Z" or "the docs say bla, $link". I try to separate the individual "update A to do B" in separate commits, but sometimes it just isn't possible.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We squash everything (and rebase rather than merge) so I don't worry much about the individual commits. I like that main is pretty concise and doesn't have a ton of work-in-progess stuff in the log.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We are mortal enemies you and I 😄 I'd much rather have a descriptive commit history than huge commits which make git blame meaningless. Function over beauty for me.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A nemesis! I'm pretty lucky I guess that no one at my workplace has strong git opinions that differ

Do you have multiple people's commits being squashed together? Or how is blame being made useless for you? I'm at a rather small company where generally it's just one person working on a thing at a time. The blame will point to their squashed commit that, if they wrote a good message like the top of this thread, will give you a lot of context.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Imagine finding a bug in angularjs, doing a git blame and finding this commit

feat(module): new module loader

211 changed files with 1,051 additions and 1,242 deletions.

AngularJS isn't even the worst offender. I've seen backports of multiple fixes getting squashed into one commit for "a clean history" with all the useful commit messages ending up in one commit.

Many user stories I've seen implemented in a sprint take multiple days to write. Sometimes they have 5+ commits with a multitude of files changed and (if done right) each commit has an explanation why something was done or at least what was done. Having a granular view of changes also allows finding related changes quickly with less code to read.
If someone changes the implementation of a function call in one commit and it introduces a bug, it's nice to have only that change instead of the entire class with it and changes in other files too. Additional changes mean now you have to read through more code to be sure that the function implementation change was not done due to a modification of the class or whatever else was changed which might be the actual source of the problem.

IMO squashing commits has its uses. It's a tool in a toolbox, but it's not the only tool.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 9 months ago

That angular commit message is a crime.

My squashed commit messages typically enumerate everything I changed and why.

IMO squashing commits has its uses. It’s a tool in a toolbox, but it’s not the only tool.

I think we agree on this.

One case that has come up for me several times: working on a feature, committing as I go. And then I realize some of what I did won't work or isn't what product actually wants. Leaving those commits in the history that show the function doing the wrong thing would be misleading. Especially if that was never actually in production or left my local machine.

I guess I have an unspoken belief that every commit on main should work, but you could achieve that with tags instead.

I was recently spelunking to try to find why something in old code was the way it was. I found the commit where they changed the line, but it was orphaned from the larger context. The message didn't say more than like "change field from footype to bartype", but not why. So I had to try to piece together what other changes were part of this change. If it had been a single commit that showed them like adding the new field, new model, and whatnot, it would have been clearer to me that those things all go together.