8 Matching Annotations
- Aug 2022
Each commit should meet the following criteria: Have a well-written commit message. Has all tests passing when used on its own (e.g. when using git checkout SHA). Can be reverted on its own without also requiring the revert of commit that came before it. Is small enough that it can be reviewed in isolation in under 30 minutes or so.
- Oct 2020
- May 2020
Having to rebase and cleanup the commits while actively working on something is time and attention consuming.
I'm not sure how I feel about that. Usually I'd say it's worth it to do it periodically, even while you're working on it. Just not obsessive compulsively to the point that it is distracting from actual work.
which might or might not be useful depending on what is the content of the commit.
Just to make this clear, I'm on the side that adding strict rules doesn't necessarily improve a situation. Especially with something that is subjective like a commit message.
Good commit hygiene in general is a tough thing to enforce. It requires manual labor and descipline, from both the author and the reviewer.
If we can encourage people to create clean commits as they go, the example as you showed above should be far less common, because cleaning up such history as an after-math is most of the time almost impossible.
- good policy/practice/procedure
- requires great effort/time/resources
- too many rules/policies not necessarily helpful/a good thing
- requires discipline
- it depends
- good commits
- do it right/well the first time because it may be too hard to clean up/fix later if you don't
- time wasters
- good commit messages