6 ms·

My definition of a perfect commit is any commit that goes to production because only shipping matters.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fernandotakai 4y ago
at the end of the day, i work to make customers productive and happy, so the perfect commit is the one that moves the product towards that goal.
- Salgat 4y ago
  Which includes a sensible (but not excessive) approach to avoiding technical debt that inhibits future functionality and feature generation.
simonw 4y ago
Probably should have mentioned that in the post: a benefit of working this way - in particular bundling tests in the same commit as your implementation - is that it makes it much safer to implement continuous deployment. Many of my projects that use this style of commits are configured so that code is deployed to production every time a commit passes CI.
mejutoco 4y ago
Instead of downvoting I am giving my opinion: if you really believed this you would not be using version control. P.S. I am assume you do, since you mention commits.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > if you really believed this you would not be using version control. > P.S. I am assume you do, since you mention commits. That's circular logic, at best. This is about the label given to "perfect" commit(s), for which someone has made an arbitrary qualitative list of attributes. The GP has a different qualitative list.
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    The argument of shipping being the only thing that matters can be used to justify editing files in production without version control. It seems, then, that using version control would be unnecessary under that logic. Nothing circular about it. I prefer good commits, and op does not mind (that is preference) but if shipping is the only thing that matters then why use version control? IMO, because other factors like collaboration and documentation also matter.
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > The argument of shipping being the only thing that matters can be used to justify editing files in production without version control. > It seems, then, that using version control would be unnecessary under that logic. > if shipping is the only thing that matters then why use version control We're talking about commits here, so there's a given that version control is used. I'm not sure why you are trying to turn it into a debate about the utility of using version control. You're defending what is obviously an overreactive post you made because you chose to interpret the post in bad faith. His values are more product focused than practice focused and there's nothing more. GL with whatever.
smcleod 4y ago
Only shipping matters - to you (and your product owner - but only in the short term), in the medium to long term shipping matters (perhaps most), but absolutely not only. Maintainability matters. The happiness and health of your peers matters. Security matters. Ethics matters. The culture of 'only shipping matters' is reflective of the exploitational aspirations of our capitalistic societies, it devalues the bigger picture. If you only care about getting your code out the door - you're part of the problem.
halayli 4y ago
it's easy to ship but it's much harder to continue shipping quality software with this approach. The more information in a commit the easier it becomes for newcomers to understand the context of what they are about to change. I sometimes end up reading the comments of an old PR to understand why a certain decision was made when it could have been in the commit. It gets worse when you have people in critical positions backing bad software engineering practices under business related excuses as this proves nothing but short sighted and the fact that they aren't a good fit for the job as technical debt is going to be waiting around the corner for payback.
cratermoon 4y ago
What does your present self think of your past self of 6 months or a year ago for that commitment to only shipping?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

at the end of the day, i work to make customers productive and happy, so the perfect commit is the one that moves the product towards that goal.

Salgat 4y ago
Which includes a sensible (but not excessive) approach to avoiding technical debt that inhibits future functionality and feature generation.

simonw 4y ago

Probably should have mentioned that in the post: a benefit of working this way - in particular bundling tests in the same commit as your implementation - is that it makes it much safer to implement continuous deployment. Many of my projects that use this style of commits are configured so that code is deployed to production every time a commit passes CI.

mejutoco 4y ago

Instead of downvoting I am giving my opinion: if you really believed this you would not be using version control. P.S. I am assume you do, since you mention commits.

Supermancho 4y ago
> if you really believed this you would not be using version control. > P.S. I am assume you do, since you mention commits. That's circular logic, at best. This is about the label given to "perfect" commit(s), for which someone has made an arbitrary qualitative list of attributes. The GP has a different qualitative list.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  The argument of shipping being the only thing that matters can be used to justify editing files in production without version control. It seems, then, that using version control would be unnecessary under that logic. Nothing circular about it. I prefer good commits, and op does not mind (that is preference) but if shipping is the only thing that matters then why use version control? IMO, because other factors like collaboration and documentation also matter.
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > The argument of shipping being the only thing that matters can be used to justify editing files in production without version control. > It seems, then, that using version control would be unnecessary under that logic. > if shipping is the only thing that matters then why use version control We're talking about commits here, so there's a given that version control is used. I'm not sure why you are trying to turn it into a debate about the utility of using version control. You're defending what is obviously an overreactive post you made because you chose to interpret the post in bad faith. His values are more product focused than practice focused and there's nothing more. GL with whatever.

smcleod 4y ago

Only shipping matters - to you (and your product owner - but only in the short term), in the medium to long term shipping matters (perhaps most), but absolutely not only. Maintainability matters. The happiness and health of your peers matters. Security matters. Ethics matters. The culture of 'only shipping matters' is reflective of the exploitational aspirations of our capitalistic societies, it devalues the bigger picture. If you only care about getting your code out the door - you're part of the problem.

halayli 4y ago

it's easy to ship but it's much harder to continue shipping quality software with this approach. The more information in a commit the easier it becomes for newcomers to understand the context of what they are about to change. I sometimes end up reading the comments of an old PR to understand why a certain decision was made when it could have been in the commit. It gets worse when you have people in critical positions backing bad software engineering practices under business related excuses as this proves nothing but short sighted and the fact that they aren't a good fit for the job as technical debt is going to be waiting around the corner for payback.

cratermoon 4y ago

What does your present self think of your past self of 6 months or a year ago for that commitment to only shipping?