6 ms·

If you have a process where every commit is well documented, you don't need much comments since you can rely on whatever is your analogue for git blame. It's no

If you have a process where every commit is well documented, you don't need much comments since you can rely on whatever is your analogue for git blame. It's not a lack of comments, it's actually the opposite but aside from the code base. When I worked at SAP where VCS for ABAP is ancient and has no analogue for git blame we had a practice of putting a SAP Note next to every code change, since some of the things that we had to implement are dictated by business/legislation, so you need a proper explanation from time to time. Without it, the code becomes unmaintainable.

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
That requires everyone to have access to the repo, and to wade through it looking for changes to the relevant area of code you're working in. That sucks.
- tormeh 3y ago
  In which situation would you not have access to the repo? I guess if it's a library or something, but libraries must always be documented in a different way to business code.
  - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
    Maybe you're a contractor. Maybe it's legacy code that has simply been archived. Maybe the network is down. Maybe there was a bad migration. Sidecars generally suck because they get lost.
    - cerved 3y ago
      If that's the case, you have bigger problems than documentation
      - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
        Like what?
- josephg 3y ago
  Relying on commits also fails as soon as feature branches start being squashed. And the comments in commits can’t be modified over time. You have to hope readers “git blame” the correct lines of your code. Just use comments.
  - cerved 3y ago
    Don't squash. If you insist on it, I can't imagine why you wouldn't squash the commit messages You're not supposed to change commit messages. The correct lines to blame are the ones right there, not exactly rocket science
    - josephg 3y ago
      If your git squash contains all the commit messages, it’s a pain to figure out which commit message refers to which line of code. A comment goes right there. No tools needed. Mutable. Readable. Contextually in place. And you can even add comments while coding without waiting for the commit. Is typing // really so much effort?
      - cerved 3y ago
        No it's not and neither is writing a proper commit message. That's why you do both, but most of it goes in the commit. Like in the Git project

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago

That requires everyone to have access to the repo, and to wade through it looking for changes to the relevant area of code you're working in. That sucks.

tormeh 3y ago
In which situation would you not have access to the repo? I guess if it's a library or something, but libraries must always be documented in a different way to business code.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  Maybe you're a contractor. Maybe it's legacy code that has simply been archived. Maybe the network is down. Maybe there was a bad migration. Sidecars generally suck because they get lost.
  - cerved 3y ago
    If that's the case, you have bigger problems than documentation
    - ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
      Like what?
josephg 3y ago
Relying on commits also fails as soon as feature branches start being squashed. And the comments in commits can’t be modified over time. You have to hope readers “git blame” the correct lines of your code. Just use comments.
- cerved 3y ago
  Don't squash. If you insist on it, I can't imagine why you wouldn't squash the commit messages You're not supposed to change commit messages. The correct lines to blame are the ones right there, not exactly rocket science
  - josephg 3y ago
    If your git squash contains all the commit messages, it’s a pain to figure out which commit message refers to which line of code. A comment goes right there. No tools needed. Mutable. Readable. Contextually in place. And you can even add comments while coding without waiting for the commit. Is typing // really so much effort?
    - cerved 3y ago
      No it's not and neither is writing a proper commit message. That's why you do both, but most of it goes in the commit. Like in the Git project