by wedesoft on 9/6/21, 8:31 PM with 102 comments
by warpech on 9/6/21, 8:50 PM
What Linus rightfully wants is the whole story right in the commit message of the merge.
I think GitHub purposely makes condensed commit messages for merges as a way to hook users to their web UI.
by kklisura on 9/6/21, 9:03 PM
..."What is your job?" Torvalds replied, "I read and write a lot of email. My job really is, in the end, is to say 'no.' Somebody has to say 'no' to [this patch or that pull request]. And because developers know that if they do something that I'll say 'no' to, they do a better job of writing the code." [1]
Do we have any idea what will happen to Linux once Torvalds is not there? Is there any example in history of OSS development as to what happens when BDFL [2] is not there anymore?
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-im-not-a-progra...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life
by nanis on 9/7/21, 12:27 AM
The biggest problem is when developers who do not really understand version control at all (there are a lot of them -- they tend to think of it as a "save" mechanism) are allowed to use all the features of GitHub and can only do their work with buttons.
For example, it is common for some developers to think that there are only two options when dealing with merge conflicts: "Accept theirs" or "accept ours" when, in reality, most real merge conflicts require a synthesis. Now, add to this the fact that such developers barely write commit message (seen too many projects with only "merge X and Y", "update", "fix bug", "implement feature" etc). The situation gets worse.
Soon, you end up with a project where the only tool for locating any issue becomes `git bisect`.
by lifeisstillgood on 9/6/21, 9:05 PM
One of the major reasons Github does not / cannot do commit messages the way Linus likes is that the reasons why odd is changed are in and supposed to be in the ticket tracker (where non-coders / committers can view / comment / approve.)
This is not a technical fix that github can make - this is a fundamental split about where the power lies - most companies do not have the final say, the source of truth, in their codebase and consequently their repos.
Linus is on the side of history here. But for those of us coders living in ticket trackers for our daily job, it's a serious culture shock. For non- coders it's an existential threat.
On a separate note, I think there is a space for using hashes to compress tickets and all the ancillary evidence and sign offs, into one artifact, and then reference that in the repo commit. But I just can't see it in my head
by superbatfish on 9/6/21, 9:30 PM
by bifrost on 9/6/21, 8:46 PM
by im_dario on 9/7/21, 10:42 AM
by Mic92 on 9/7/21, 6:56 AM
by chrisseaton on 9/6/21, 8:42 PM
by bborud on 9/6/21, 8:45 PM
by Thristle on 9/6/21, 11:13 PM
If you just pick rebase instead of merge from the UI the commits will be merged without that "meta commit".
No need to get all emotional
by Shadonototro on 9/6/21, 9:38 PM
by systemvoltage on 9/6/21, 8:46 PM
by 908B64B197 on 9/6/21, 8:42 PM
It's not the content of what's merged that he's complaining about, it's the default formatting from the GitHub UI (no commit message for instance).
by moron4hire on 9/6/21, 9:04 PM
by ameixaseca on 9/6/21, 8:50 PM
by bigcorp-slave on 9/6/21, 8:46 PM
This is just the tech crowd equivalent of a tabloid at the supermarket checkout isle, Tom Cruise is secretly a ferret-lover, read all about Bob’s torrid affair with Mallory!