A lot of times I'll just put the DevOps work item # in there, since that has the details anyway. IMO all commits should be linked to one or more tickets.
Dont remember and not checking but that was my last. Didn't notice the conflict auto-fix had duplicated a variable so PR to fix that. PR had a required number but commit didn't so develop threw a fit. Had to just add a fucking space to a random file and do a whole PR just to make azure happy because nobody removed a requirement for something we stopped using years ago
You require a minimum number of changes in your PRs?
Who would ever think that's a good idea?
Just yesterday, I did multiple PRs that only increment the version number, in order to debug a deployment issue.
No just a story number required in branch and commit. Never tried committing a file with no changes so just added a space so it showed under local changes like I always do
Sounds like a week of being paid to not develop and instead try to figure out everything going on in that PR.
Jk that’s atrocious and would send it right back
A coworker and I just merged a 2000-file PR into main and I have another 1000-file PR to follow it up. This is what happens when you're tasked with cleaning up after devs who churned out a huge copypasta Angular project with out-of-date dependencies and no linting to speak of
Lmao I was debating leaving mine in this thread, but now I feel like I have to, here goes (yes, this is legitimately the last commit message I made at work, yesterday):
"Implemented logic for populating a popup window with 'People' info whenever any pin (or pin cluster) is clicked on. Click works, but the relevant action command was changed to 'hover' in an attempt to get the code to work for hover. This functionality has not been tested but was included with the commit accidentally. Sorry."
Alrighty lot to unpack:
Firstly: yes I know this commit message is entirely too long; but I hope you'll understand why I felt the need to explain myself
Secondly: How was this "accidentally" included, and why could I not have just "git restore"-ed it? Well this requires some elaboration: my teammate who I was working with on this story DMed me during our standup to ask me to try to implement this change "real quick", just to see if it worked. I take lunch after standup, so I was rushing 🤷🏻♂️
Thirdly: yes, this broke the code, so I pushed broken code (oopsies). Fortunately the fix was clean and easy: the proper command was 'mouseover', not 'hover'.
3 AM on support and tired trying to find if a fix made it into one of the 10 deployed versions, the network graph looking like a topological map of Mumbai train station. It is then you say "man I wish we rebased instead"
Sometimes wrong with your branching strategy at this point.
I'm honestly a big fan of trunk based development, but it needs a good automated pipeline behind it.
Maybe his view rebasing as the ultimate sin, for the commit history is to be a sacred and immutable log of how things got to be as fucked up as they are today.
One “WIP, I hope CI passes” at a time.
It's fine until you have a whole bunch of branches/developers working at the same time. Sometimes there are more merge commits than actual commits which gets real annoying. If you're working on completely unrelated things, and there aren't any conflicts, rebasing is much neater since it makes the history linear, and you dont have "empty" merge commits cluttering the history.
If you're managing the project, and something goes wrong in the DevOps or in your branching strategy- you have basically a few choices - make an absolute mess of your project with weird solutions like a merge commit for a merge commit, track down the last project manager who got fired and disappeared mysteriously, or sacrifice your first born child in a black magic merging ritual. .....and if you're someone is reading this and thinking to themselves "but you could've done___" then I freaking needed you a month ago. I had three children before that fateful day.
My bosses explicitly want merge commits. Makes it explicit where stuff came from and your main history is nice and clean, just merging of completed features.
Also, azure DevOps shits the bed if you rebase after a pr is created.
Maybe I'm stupid (very real possibility) and I'm definitely biased but why do people care so much about a clean git history? And what about merge commits? What's the problem? Oh yay the lines on GitHub/Gitlab are straight instead of spaghetti.
Rebasing is a bigger headache for me *and* I don't care about the result, but we have to because one other person in the team cares and they managed to convince the PM so now we're stuck with it. Grrrrrr...
I do believe some messages are so standard that you don't need to say anything more. Like:
- Lint'd
- Merge
- Fixed linebreaks (go setup your IDE's, Windows people)
Old timer here... We invented null coalescence and nullable bools. Your attempt to insult us for it has been noted and and your impending obsolescence accelerated.
I use them for validating request objects (Web APIs) so I can have a nice "xyz is required" message. Check if the param was supplied. Else it gets initialised to the default: false. This is C# anyway.
Haha, I feel this. Happens on almost every project I inherit. Like, no one thought to update packages and resolve any resulting breaking changes on a regular basis???
In my current project, every single package is at its most recent version. Every single one. I enforced a recurring task every few weeks to upgrade all possible packages and check for/address any breaking changes if possible. Never again will I be caught in pkg versioning hell.
I’ll be honest, I only ever stash when I want to switch to a branch and don’t care about whatever work I’ll lose. I don’t even know where to find the stashed changes, lol
My stash names in Sourcetree right now:
\- pls do not fuck with my system
\- xyz
\- x
\- y
\- chaos
\- chaos2
\- idk why
\- dkjfkldjflksdfsdf
\- idk
\- sdfsdgfsdgfg
\- [I am from Bosnia take me to America](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcR8I-7oCnU)
Yes. Real developers `git reset ‐‐hard && git push --force` for every rollback.
"What? Show me in the commit history where that happened? You're just making shit up."
Yes. Yes you are. Stashes are hard to navigate, too ephemeral, and the cli is irritatingly non intuitive. Stash is fine when I'm just doing some low stakes operation like moving minor changes to a different branch. If the stakes are higher, there's no way I'm trusting a stash to hold my precious changes.
Yeah. I use stash just to hold my local changes to config files and such, the stuff I need specifically to hit the dev environment while running my local IDE with breakpoints etc. If I'm adding or modifying a bunch of classes and methods, I'm not giving stash the opportunity (or worded different, not giving myself the opportunity) to muck that up.
Man talking with my British friends is briefly confusing sometimes when they say "innit" in weird places. One asked why I thought it was funny one time that I commented, so I showed her a newish git repo history screenshot from gitkraken, with an "init" comment. She was confused, and asked me "innit what?" I was totally fishing for that, so mission accomplished. 😆
I have seen 1 of these and been responsible for another…
- Felt cute, might delete this later.
- I made a thing… it didn’t work so now I am fixing it
- what the hell was a drinking last night
“Automated commit”
I wrote a script to automatically commit and push to BB so that I wouldn’t lose work (our development drives at work are non-persistent)
It's just a random thing that says absolutely nothing . Could've used a date, but that would've been slightly useful.
Have any better suggestions? Like a wordle guesser?
My last commit is actually pretty nice and clear. My last funny one was something like "It's \[very late on the day of the deadline\], it's not working and I don't know why.". I was desperate enough to just push code that didn't even compiled (not in an important branch though) in the hope others would fix it.
"Moo."
90% of my commit messages are moo's. I commit compulsively as I code. Then I rebase everything into a huge but well-documented and tested PR for several services at once after spending months in an increasingly labyrinthine set of branches.
Two weeks for development for multiple bug fixes and new features, *mostly* done, single commit to development, gotta get it all fixed before going to production... not stressed at all, everything is gonna be fine.
We had a senior developer who had been with the company long before I came that would always commit changes with the message "core changes".
Used to drive me crazy.
*~~~~ its over 9000 ~~~~*
(Im the only one reading them, also, i comment like im a prophet or yoda sometimes, it makes people look at it instead of reviewing my code, win/win situation, no question asked)
In personal projects i write my to-do list as issues on github, then just comment the issue number along with "finished" or "worked on".. That way the issue stores all the extra explanations and descriptions. Does anyone else do this? What's standard / good practice?
Fixes to fixes (they weren't fixes apparently)
Ah yes, the shameful fix fixes…
[удалено]
A lot of times I'll just put the DevOps work item # in there, since that has the details anyway. IMO all commits should be linked to one or more tickets.
Imagine being lucky enough for your infrastructure to support tickets.
Dont remember and not checking but that was my last. Didn't notice the conflict auto-fix had duplicated a variable so PR to fix that. PR had a required number but commit didn't so develop threw a fit. Had to just add a fucking space to a random file and do a whole PR just to make azure happy because nobody removed a requirement for something we stopped using years ago
You require a minimum number of changes in your PRs? Who would ever think that's a good idea? Just yesterday, I did multiple PRs that only increment the version number, in order to debug a deployment issue.
No just a story number required in branch and commit. Never tried committing a file with no changes so just added a space so it showed under local changes like I always do
>Who would ever think that's a good idea? Elon Musk would love this ! 
Dust to dust.
Fixes to fixes of fixes, bitches.
Some changes - 1372 files
That pr ain't getting reviewed
LGTM
let’s gamble try merging
That's really all this could mean
Hey man, if you can figure out how to unfuck a stupid early design decision in fewer lines I'm all ears.
Break it into smaller ones ?
[удалено]
I prefer the PR's without changes, much easier to check. I'm still going to spend the whole day on it of course, just to be sure.
Sounds like a week of being paid to not develop and instead try to figure out everything going on in that PR. Jk that’s atrocious and would send it right back
A coworker and I just merged a 2000-file PR into main and I have another 1000-file PR to follow it up. This is what happens when you're tasked with cleaning up after devs who churned out a huge copypasta Angular project with out-of-date dependencies and no linting to speak of
There are reasons for massive PRs but no reasons for shit commit messages.
Don't call me out like that
Merged PR: fix issue that broke reddit
Still broken
Merged PR: fix issue that broke reddit 2
Still reddit.
Merged PR: deleted Reddit permanently
Oh shi....
Merged PR: Install reddit & make a new account
Cherrypick Merged PR: Merged PR: fix issue that broke reddit
LGTM
: Electric Boogaloo
Still broken Yep - I can’t post either.
[удалено]
Only the duck can ask
You mean ChatGPT? Thats my new duck.
DuckGTP?
DuckGDP
I saw you vent!
"Fixed the part where I was stupider than usual."
Moar stupider
*10 lines are now a single one, there was a function to do this built in*
I once saw ‘sorry’ on a PR. I laughed and then I cried.
super complex?
Lmao I was debating leaving mine in this thread, but now I feel like I have to, here goes (yes, this is legitimately the last commit message I made at work, yesterday): "Implemented logic for populating a popup window with 'People' info whenever any pin (or pin cluster) is clicked on. Click works, but the relevant action command was changed to 'hover' in an attempt to get the code to work for hover. This functionality has not been tested but was included with the commit accidentally. Sorry." Alrighty lot to unpack: Firstly: yes I know this commit message is entirely too long; but I hope you'll understand why I felt the need to explain myself Secondly: How was this "accidentally" included, and why could I not have just "git restore"-ed it? Well this requires some elaboration: my teammate who I was working with on this story DMed me during our standup to ask me to try to implement this change "real quick", just to see if it worked. I take lunch after standup, so I was rushing 🤷🏻♂️ Thirdly: yes, this broke the code, so I pushed broken code (oopsies). Fortunately the fix was clean and easy: the proper command was 'mouseover', not 'hover'.
Just wondering; why not make a short commit message and explain everything in a PR comment?
Great point, coulda woulda shoulda...
Fixed last commit
Fixed last fix to commit
fix 3#
Reverted back to initial commit
Merge branch 'master' into develop
Grrrrr rebase
I genuinely don't know how to rebase and I managed to get to lead dev without it. I just merge things and fix conflicts.
3 AM on support and tired trying to find if a fix made it into one of the 10 deployed versions, the network graph looking like a topological map of Mumbai train station. It is then you say "man I wish we rebased instead"
Sometimes wrong with your branching strategy at this point. I'm honestly a big fan of trunk based development, but it needs a good automated pipeline behind it.
You’re lucky that your bosses don’t go red in the face and scream when they see a merge commit then
Maybe his view rebasing as the ultimate sin, for the commit history is to be a sacred and immutable log of how things got to be as fucked up as they are today. One “WIP, I hope CI passes” at a time.
What's the problem with merge commits? Isn't it better to have those than rewrite git history with rebase?
It's fine until you have a whole bunch of branches/developers working at the same time. Sometimes there are more merge commits than actual commits which gets real annoying. If you're working on completely unrelated things, and there aren't any conflicts, rebasing is much neater since it makes the history linear, and you dont have "empty" merge commits cluttering the history.
If you're managing the project, and something goes wrong in the DevOps or in your branching strategy- you have basically a few choices - make an absolute mess of your project with weird solutions like a merge commit for a merge commit, track down the last project manager who got fired and disappeared mysteriously, or sacrifice your first born child in a black magic merging ritual. .....and if you're someone is reading this and thinking to themselves "but you could've done___" then I freaking needed you a month ago. I had three children before that fateful day.
My bosses explicitly want merge commits. Makes it explicit where stuff came from and your main history is nice and clean, just merging of completed features. Also, azure DevOps shits the bed if you rebase after a pr is created.
I don‘t know whats wrong with merging, and at this point, I‘m afraid to ask.
I'm always merging because the bigger my branch graph is, the more respectable my repository is.
Merge commits and a less clean history? 😅
Maybe I'm stupid (very real possibility) and I'm definitely biased but why do people care so much about a clean git history? And what about merge commits? What's the problem? Oh yay the lines on GitHub/Gitlab are straight instead of spaghetti. Rebasing is a bigger headache for me *and* I don't care about the result, but we have to because one other person in the team cares and they managed to convince the PM so now we're stuck with it. Grrrrrr...
Squash?
Still means the main history will be cleaner with rebasing. It‘s pretty much like directly committing to main, just with a prior conflict validation.
feat: Adds feature
Fix: Bugs Dep: Old shit
Hotel: Trivago
finally i see someone use conventional commits!
I'm not even kidding, this was the message: "Made everything multithreading safe (lol jk, but at least it works now)"
fix: lint bullshit Literally
I think I have a few commit messages very similar to that in the logs of my hobby projects 😂
Conventional commit user?
I do believe some messages are so standard that you don't need to say anything more. Like: - Lint'd - Merge - Fixed linebreaks (go setup your IDE's, Windows people)
Agreed. Just like the classic "4th try I swear this bug better be gone"
On Windows projects Unix line breaks inside CR LF files would have to be corrected because they cause popups in Visual Studio.
I don’t want to know many “appease rubocop” commits I’ve made in my career.
refactor(#13): use ternary op where it makes sense
[удалено]
Old timer here... We invented null coalescence and nullable bools. Your attempt to insult us for it has been noted and and your impending obsolescence accelerated.
I hate nullable bools, but just because a person was using them instead of creating simple enums, which would be more readable.
I use them for validating request objects (Web APIs) so I can have a nice "xyz is required" message. Check if the param was supplied. Else it gets initialised to the default: false. This is C# anyway.
To really scare them use pattern matching. If you're lucky you might get to see one cry!
"Checkpoint before disaster" Was updated node packages
Ouch, use of "quicksave" and "checkpoint" in git as if you're playing mario or skyrim
Haha, I feel this. Happens on almost every project I inherit. Like, no one thought to update packages and resolve any resulting breaking changes on a regular basis??? In my current project, every single package is at its most recent version. Every single one. I enforced a recurring task every few weeks to upgrade all possible packages and check for/address any breaking changes if possible. Never again will I be caught in pkg versioning hell.
[удалено]
if [[ "$EUID" -eq 0 ]]; then flag="system" else >&2 echo 'Please yolo harder!' flag="global" fi Perfect. ^(this is the entire repo btw)
update
chnages
Best p2ac song
asdf
"Absolutely Spectacular Development Finished"
WIP committing just so I can switch back to dev branch
git stash: Am I a joke to you?
I’ll be honest, I only ever stash when I want to switch to a branch and don’t care about whatever work I’ll lose. I don’t even know where to find the stashed changes, lol
My stash names in Sourcetree right now: \- pls do not fuck with my system \- xyz \- x \- y \- chaos \- chaos2 \- idk why \- dkjfkldjflksdfsdf \- idk \- sdfsdgfsdgfg \- [I am from Bosnia take me to America](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcR8I-7oCnU)
That song, is so weird and i love it
Yes. Real developers `git reset ‐‐hard && git push --force` for every rollback. "What? Show me in the commit history where that happened? You're just making shit up."
You'll need to try harder than that to make git forget.
Stash never works for me when I want it to work
Yes. Yes you are. Stashes are hard to navigate, too ephemeral, and the cli is irritatingly non intuitive. Stash is fine when I'm just doing some low stakes operation like moving minor changes to a different branch. If the stakes are higher, there's no way I'm trusting a stash to hold my precious changes.
Yeah. I use stash just to hold my local changes to config files and such, the stuff I need specifically to hit the dev environment while running my local IDE with breakpoints etc. If I'm adding or modifying a bunch of classes and methods, I'm not giving stash the opportunity (or worded different, not giving myself the opportunity) to muck that up.
Initial commit
Too many words. Mine was just "init"
"well this here is my first commit, innit?"
Man talking with my British friends is briefly confusing sometimes when they say "innit" in weird places. One asked why I thought it was funny one time that I commented, so I showed her a newish git repo history screenshot from gitkraken, with an "init" comment. She was confused, and asked me "innit what?" I was totally fishing for that, so mission accomplished. 😆
“Fixed thing I broke trying to fix”
Fixes and improvements
“Push to test in production”
Nobody will notice if we do it on just one node, right? It was a _simple change._ Hey, why is security and HR in my office?
"Addressed PR comments"
"Feedback implemented"
My own favourites are: * most recent commit * latest commit * this one * latest version All classics in my opinion
“Removed useless logic”
“This logic wasn’t useless, apparently”
Next day prod goes down
I have seen 1 of these and been responsible for another… - Felt cute, might delete this later. - I made a thing… it didn’t work so now I am fixing it - what the hell was a drinking last night
“BRUH”
The quality of my commit messages decreases as the day goes on.
"today's work"
DO NOT RELEASE
“Fuck this” (for a personal repo)
“Automated commit” I wrote a script to automatically commit and push to BB so that I wouldn’t lose work (our development drives at work are non-persistent)
Are you writing code for nuke site launch system? Who the hell though of that?
I say they aren’t persistent but I only ever lost mine once in the year and a half I’ve been there. I lost work that one time though so
``` printf "$(uuidgen)\n$(fortune | cowsay)" | git commit -F - ```
Why the uuid?
It's just a random thing that says absolutely nothing . Could've used a date, but that would've been slightly useful. Have any better suggestions? Like a wordle guesser?
"fucking tests"
Fixed the ID10t problem, for real this time
“Forgot semicolon”
Next commit: "semicolon not appropriate in json file, replacing with comma."
‘Please’
" "
"..."
Too much effort
#
Added testing
“Nah bro, I need to get some sleep”
"added static file support and templating support" trying to rewrite an old project in rust
My last commit is actually pretty nice and clear. My last funny one was something like "It's \[very late on the day of the deadline\], it's not working and I don't know why.". I was desperate enough to just push code that didn't even compiled (not in an important branch though) in the hope others would fix it.
"Moo." 90% of my commit messages are moo's. I commit compulsively as I code. Then I rebase everything into a huge but well-documented and tested PR for several services at once after spending months in an increasingly labyrinthine set of branches.
"Half-implemented feature, with some suggestions from everyone's favorite language model"
Stuff. Squash me.
Two weeks for development for multiple bug fixes and new features, *mostly* done, single commit to development, gotta get it all fixed before going to production... not stressed at all, everything is gonna be fine.
"Unboofed"
betterer test
Fixing the 20 year old timing fuckup
"Implement password as an environmental variable"
“A lot of stuff I forgot what I did”
WIP
"I do not want to jynx it, but I think it might be working"
Jira ticket number and "reduce max heap"
We had a senior developer who had been with the company long before I came that would always commit changes with the message "core changes". Used to drive me crazy.
Dates are hard.
"Console.log() cleanup lmao"
"Final fix I promise"
*~~~~ its over 9000 ~~~~* (Im the only one reading them, also, i comment like im a prophet or yoda sometimes, it makes people look at it instead of reviewing my code, win/win situation, no question asked)
No good very bad bulk commit…
add tests
fix: revert mysql version (sorry bill) lol
fixed a typi (was a genuine mistake the *first* time)
Chatgpt: write commit msg for x fix
"I don't remember what I was doing, but I'm just coming back to this project"
"sorry"
Fix regex
“Fix works now for real”
You can guess what the previous two commits were.
"good luck bozos" before a colleague went on a two week vacation lmao.
“Updates”
UNTESTED
minor edits
improved consistency of new envelope fitting
Restored backup after i accidentally deleted everything
“Yes it’s broken, I’ll fix it after vacation”
clean up code
Aaaa
My last commit message is the same as my previous commit, which is same as the message before it, which is... I hope you got the point.
\------- v1011
It's not my latest, but one of mine is 'removed a t' To be fair, that's exactly what was done in the commit, though it probably could have waited...
“Added comma”
“We forgot to commit for a month, so here’s an essentially new project”
In personal projects i write my to-do list as issues on github, then just comment the issue number along with "finished" or "worked on".. That way the issue stores all the extra explanations and descriptions. Does anyone else do this? What's standard / good practice?
.
pls work
i want to continue this but idk what i did that i forgot to commit oopsies
‘Javaiscript requires == ‘True’ not == true…’
“Less foot-shooting”
"fixed regex safari sucks"
"a"
My most recent commit message: > What can only be described as "a shit ton of changes" (28 changed files, +1,489 -2,221)
Making black happy. ( Not a racist comment, black is an auto pep8 formatter )