A colleague recently joked to me during review "These are commit messages not your memoir!"

I tend to write long commit messages. In extreme cases, I'll write ~300 words on a two line change! This exacerbates my colleagues to no end, as during a review they must read all this English before even getting near the code! In my current thinking, I do not think this is so bad; indeed, this is a price that's worth paying. To explain why, it's worth explaining what I consider git's role, as well as what I hope to accomplish (apart from writing my memoir)

The magic of git

Let's first start by considering where git messages are most commonly used. I can only speak for myself on this one:

  1. When I am working out where on earth today disappeared to (time tracking)
  2. When I want to know who made a change so I can ask them a question (git blame)
  3. When I am trying to understand a change by someone who no longer works with us (annotate in PHPStorm)

Number #3 is comfortably the most frustrating. It is mildly rage inducing to see "Fixed a bug with the importer" when someone does not work here, complete with a path set that introduces a nasty hack that in turn, added another problem. So, the goal with commit messages is to provide as much information as required to future generations of developers (or just future me) to save them as much time and heartache as possible when they're trying to understand the work that I've written; perhaps even years later.

So, to begin, let's think a little about how git works. Git works by layering changes. There's the initial change (by convention simply titled "Initial Commit", and consisting of a blank README.md file or something similar), but every change there after is made by "adding changes" to the existing data, rather than "replacing" it with a newer copy of the data.

Let's take a look at this by adding some content to a blank README.md (after it's been initialized):

$ echo "Hello, World!" > README.md
$ git add README.md
$ git commit -m "Said hello to the world"
# "HEAD" means the currently checked out commit. ~1 means "go back 1 from"
$ git format-patch HEAD~1


$ cat 0001-Said-hello-to-the-world.patch

From 43182381239211b4e425c38878a11a04c46cc617 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Howden <hello@redacted.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:09:35 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Said hello to the world

 README.md | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index e69de29..8ab686e 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Hello, World!

We can see who made the change (hello@redacted.de), When, the "Subject" (or commit message) and the changes. Each change is the file (README.md), the position in the file in which the changes were made (0,0 +1), the lines that were delted (---) and the lines that were added (+++). In the case above, you can see that "Hello, World!" was added; it's prefixed with the "+" character.

Every single commit looks like this. When you check out a repo, you are checking out that initial state and rebuilding the files from all the changes that have occurred between then and now. Isn't this incredible! It gives git tremendous power to go back and fourth between every change, skip certain changes, squash some changes in with other changes or even to undo a specific change made many years ago.

When thinking about how to write commit messages, this means that you are writing a message that explains the specific changes that you have made (referred to as a "patch set"). Given this, we can start to think about what information is useful in a commit and what information is not. It's perhaps easier to start with what's not useful. Some information you can glean simply from inspecting the git tree, without needing to read the commit message at all. This includes things like:

  • What files changed
  • What changes were made to those files
  • When those changes were made
  • Who made those changes

This information is all recorded automatically. Thus: you can skip it in your commit message.

Where magic can't save you

What a commit message does a terrible job of handling the why questions:

  • Why was this change made? What did it hope to accomplish?
  • Why was this design chosen over other, alternative designs?
  • Why was a particularly hacky fix introduced? What were the constraints?

These questions are super, super important when revisiting work later implemented! Coming back to our earlier commit message of "Fixed a bug with the importer" it could be made much nicer as follows:

Fixed a bug with the importer

During normal operation of the website, an error condition was found
that prevented nested categories from being associated with any
products. Specifically, a limitation in the data change format that
does not anticipate a nested array was found.

To resolve this, this commit splits categories into their own
hierarchy, and later recombines them into the expected tree. This
means that the current data format works, but is a significantly heaver
computational burden.

Design Notes:

rethinking the data format:

  Unfortunately this change was detected in the production environment,
  and an emergency fix must be implemented as soon as possible. Future
  work should restructure the expected format such that this condition
  never occurs.

With the above information, I can go back to the product manager and indicate that there have been systemic issues in this area, and that we need more time to reevaluate this system. That's so much more valuable! It saves the client money by not patching over systemic problems, and gives us the necessary context to find the issue much more quickly, and decide in a better course of action.

This also has some nice side effects like:

  • Making all commits teachable moments. If each commit is well documented, reviewers may learn some new approach to solve a problem
  • Writing documentation inline.
  • Making me feel way less guilty for moving between projects or jobs.

Merge Commits

A merge commit is a request to take a set of patches from one stream of work (one branch) and merge it into another stream of work (another branch). Generally speaking when writing commits I will include summary information about a number of commits on a merge commit, or simply omit any information at all; opting instead to document each commit.

Code Review

Code review is a fundamental part of our development workflow. Invariably, questions are raised and answered, code changes made. However, it is important to stress code review is not permanent. No one is going to look for the code review when reviewing history. Nor might this even be possible; software around development workflows should not be fixed, and dependencies kept to an absolute minimum.

Accordingly, when questions are asked of the review, answer them in the appropriate commit. When additional work is required, document why in your own words, rather than simply writing "CR Fixes" or something equally as obtuse.

In summary

Commit messages are a kind of memoir. They're our memoir to our future selves; the way we can communicate with each other across time and jobs. So, bring on the memoirs!