Commit naming conventions?

Hey!

I’ve been taught to use repositories before, but then we were told to commit for example “add cube” instead of “added cube”. The reasoning was that a commit should be about what the commit does, not a history of what a user did. If that makes any sense to you, what do you think? Is it even worth thinking about?

Ooh, good topic.

Context could matter here a little bit, e.g. if you are only a solo dev then I would suggest that perhaps being consistent in the approach should override all, it’s only you that has to read it, so be happy with it.

Of course, if you are in a team, then perhaps this is a different story. Consistency now is even more important, because if everyone is just doing their own thing, it’s going to get messy real fast.

I found this rather nice article online which outlines some tips, thought I’d share;

Item number 5 covers your method, imperative mood. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Thanks for the article, i shared it with the devs at my school! :slight_smile:

Yeah i’ve run into problems where we had to roll back on the product a bit due to issues, and bad subject lines are absolutely a nightmare to deal with! Now i preach this stuff during projects. The fifth “rule” of the article really hit this topic on the nose, thanks again for sharing.

1 Like

No problem, thanks for raising the topic, its a gret one :slight_smile:

Privacy & Terms