Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jochim | Hacker News Reader

This feels like a fairly disingenuous interpretation of how this gets implemented.

Normally, commits must match a particular pattern to be included. Those that start with "feat:" might appear in the features section, while those starting with "bug:" show up in fixes.

A few simple rules are enough to ensure that an intelligible changelog is generated. Minimal cleanup can then focus on making it presentable.

You could even set up your pull request rules to handle this for you. On approval it could look at the linked issue and include the title and appropriate pattern for that issue as the message for any merge/squash commits it creates.

View on HN

This is peak HN: getting accused of being "disingenuous" for making a glib comment complaining about too many "fixed typo" and other trivial commits in a git log.

>On approval it could look at the linked issue and include the title and appropriate pattern for that issue as the message for any merge/squash commits it creates.

Squashing is great IMO, but the problem is that many organizations prohibit it, because it erases a developer's commit history, because apparently it's really, really interesting to pore through dozens of commits where a developer fixed some whitespace, fixed some typos, etc. (Before you say something about rebasing, these same organizations also frequently prohibit that too.)

> This is peak HN: getting accused of being "disingenuous" for making a glib comment complaining about too many "fixed typo" and other trivial commits in a git log.

Making snarky comments isn't particularly interesting, nor does it offer much opportunity for discussing the actual benefits/drawbacks of the topic.

> Squashing is great IMO, but the problem is that many organizations prohibit it, because it erases a developer's commit history, because apparently it's really, really interesting to pore through dozens of commits where a developer fixed some whitespace, fixed some typos, etc. (Before you say something about rebasing, these same organizations also frequently prohibit that too.)

That's an issue with the policies of those specific organisations rather than with the idea of generating a changelog from commit messages.

Squashing/Rebasing isn't necessary to generate a clean changelog. You don't need to include every commit by default.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com