241–250 of 546 posts
I was curious what information I could glean from these for some popular repos. Caveat: I'm primarily an low-level embedded developer so I don't interface with large open source projects at the source level very often (other than occasionally the linux kernel). I chose some projects at random that I use. *Mainline linux* Most changed files: pretty much what I expected for 1 and 2... the "cutting edge" of Linux develo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a team lead/CTO problem. A good leader will be explicit in their expectations that developers write good commit messages. I've certainly had good leaders that expect this.
I think it's a stretch to measure leadership quality on something so minor, a lot of teams find them pretty useless no matter how good they are.
As a manager, one of the first things I do is make sure that the PR titles (the PR text becomes the commit messages in squash-merging workflows) at minimum begin with a ticket number. Then we can later read both the intention and the commentary on it.
I love how the author thinks developers write commit messages. All joking aside, it really is a chronic problem in the corporate world. Most codebases I encounter just have "changed stuff" or "hope this works now". It's a small minority of developers (myself included) who consider the git commit log to be important enough to spend time writing something meaningful. AI generated commit messages helps this a lot, if de…
This is a team lead/CTO problem. A good leader will be explicit in their expectations that developers write good commit messages. I've certainly had good leaders that expect this.
So we told him to commit at least once every day, with a relevant commit message, or else fail his internship.
He worked 21 more days. There were 21 commits: "17:00, time to go home".
Jujutsu equivalents, if anyone is curious: What Changes the Most jj log --no-graph -r 'ancestors(trunk()) & committer_date(after:"1 year ago")' \ -T 'self.diff().files().map(|f| f.path() ++ "\n").join("")' \ | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -20 Who Built This jj log --no-graph -r 'ancestors(trunk()) & ~merges()' \ -T 'self.author().name() ++ "\n"' \ | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr Where Do Bugs Cluster jj log --no-grap…
I don’t understand how people can remember all these custom scripting languages. I can’t even remember most git flags, I’m ecstatic when I remember how to iterate over arrays in “jq”, I can’t fathom how people remember these types of syntaxes.
If you have multiple machines (/must have), just apply your user config to current machine?
The last sentence of the article is "Here’s what the rest of the week looks like." and then it just stops. Am I missing something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a stretch to measure leadership quality on something so minor, a lot of teams find them pretty useless no matter how good they are.
Useless? So you never use “git annotate” or your IDE to see who wrote a line of code whose purpose puzzles you, and go to the commit message to see what they were trying to accomplish? This is invaluable to me as long as commit messages are clear. As a manager, one of the first things I do is make sure that the PR titles (the PR text becomes the commit messages in squash-merging workflows) at minimum begin with a tic…
Personally no, the code is the "truth". If I need more I'm going to open a dialog with the author, not spend time trying to interpret a 7 word commit message, "good" or otherwise.
I love how the author thinks developers write commit messages. All joking aside, it really is a chronic problem in the corporate world. Most codebases I encounter just have "changed stuff" or "hope this works now". It's a small minority of developers (myself included) who consider the git commit log to be important enough to spend time writing something meaningful. AI generated commit messages helps this a lot, if de…
This is a team lead/CTO problem. A good leader will be explicit in their expectations that developers write good commit messages. I've certainly had good leaders that expect this.
I love how the author thinks developers write commit messages. All joking aside, it really is a chronic problem in the corporate world. Most codebases I encounter just have "changed stuff" or "hope this works now". It's a small minority of developers (myself included) who consider the git commit log to be important enough to spend time writing something meaningful. AI generated commit messages helps this a lot, if de…
Jujutsu equivalents, if anyone is curious: What Changes the Most jj log --no-graph -r 'ancestors(trunk()) & committer_date(after:"1 year ago")' \ -T 'self.diff().files().map(|f| f.path() ++ "\n").join("")' \ | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -20 Who Built This jj log --no-graph -r 'ancestors(trunk()) & ~merges()' \ -T 'self.author().name() ++ "\n"' \ | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr Where Do Bugs Cluster jj log --no-grap…
I don't want to program git, I want to get stuff done so I would reject using that tool and do what the article author did running tried and true pipeable Linux/UNIX commands. It's also the same reason why I dislike Gradle and use Maven, I don't want to program my build I want to define and run my build.
A language that properly maps to the data model, and has readable identifiers is a boon. Git is a database, a database needs a proper query language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? I have my signing behavior set to own and I haven't noticed any issues, but I don't actually rely on signatures for much.
If you need to type in a password to unlock your keychain (e.g. default behavior for gpg-agent), then signing commits one at a time constantly is annoying. Does "own" try to sign working copy snapshot commits too? That would greatly increase the number and frequency of signatures.
> Does "own" try to sign working copy snapshot commits too?
Yes