alt Hacker NewsIf your git history gives you the "what" and not the "why", you are doing it wrong. We can already see what is done in the commit diff. We can only guess why you did it if you don't explain in the message.
If your git history gives you the "what" and not the "why", you are doing it wrong. We can already see what is done in the commit diff. We can only guess why you did it if you don't explain in the message.
I thought I agreed with you at first but I'm not sure. Either we disagree on how important what and why are, or on how "why" is the defined or expressed.
I think commit messages should actually have a concise "what" in them.
I frequently enough end up looking at git log trying to sort out what changed (to track down a bug or regression), and based on the commit message, do a git show to see what the actual diffs are.
So in that context, at least, knowing what changed in a commit is actually quite useful, and why is arguably less so.
I suspect my idea of "what" and your idea of "why" overlap in this scenario.
Edit: and after typing all that, I realized your comment doesn't imply there shouldn't be a "what" described anyway so maybe I'm just discussing nothing at all.