![]() Isolated features can be rolled out more easily as related commits are grouped together. ![]() There is one main reason, clarity, which takes the form of grouping features in a logical way as well as writing better, clearer more consistent commit messages. Why change history when you can just alter the present to suit you? We can change history, purely for the sake of clarity in our commit messages. There is a third (and much better) option. We could just avoid making any mistakes ever, or we could be really creative with our commit messages to mask the reality that the current branch is a disaster that may or may not be fixed at some point. ![]() It’s fine if your code doesn’t work the way you want first time, and yes you might get frustrated when it doesn’t (which is also normal) - but we should really not be exhibiting this in our Git commit history. 10 commits into our project and already there is no real consistency. Followed by the feat and fix prefix touches which are cute, however, by the time we get to the deploy code to staging section I can see the frustration starting to unfold. Reading bottom to top: We started off “okay” with the obligatory initial commit commit. ![]() Have you ever seen a commit history something like this? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |