The Advantages of Standardized Commit Messages: A Closer Look

In the world of software development, where collaboration is key and projects can involve multiple contributors, the way we communicate through code becomes incredibly important. One aspect of this communication is commit messages—notations that accompany each change made to a codebase. In this post, we will explore the advantages of standardized commit messages (SCM), the different conventions available, and the debate surrounding their necessity.

The Value of Standardized Commit Messages

When I first entered the industry, I was fortunate to work in an environment that valued good coding practices. One of the first lessons I learned was the importance of standardized commit messages. The convention I encountered involved using the capitalized imperative form of verbs, such as “Add confirmation dialog” or “Update dependencies.” This approach seemed logical and aligned with my desire for orderly work, so I embraced it without question.

However, as I’ve navigated through various workplaces and contributed to numerous open-source projects, I’ve noticed a wide range of commit message conventions—or sometimes, no convention at all. Strikingly, I found that the lack of a standardized format often didn’t seem to impact the overall quality and understandability of the codebase. Commit messages like “Add confirmation dialog to login page,” “added confirmation dialog to login page,” or even “feat(auth): Add confirmation dialog” all conveyed the same information effectively.

The Importance of Atomic Commits

From my experience, the most critical aspect of a commit is not the format of its message, but rather that the commit itself is “atomic.” An atomic commit contains a single logical change, making it easier for team members to understand the purpose of the change. While some may argue that adhering to a specific syntax enhances clarity, I believe that as long as the message is readable and understandable, the specific wording is less important.

That said, I recognize one distinct advantage of SCM: the ability for machines to read and analyze them. This is particularly relevant for changelog generators, which create documentation of changes based on commit messages. However, I personally prefer manually maintained changelogs, so this benefit doesn’t heavily influence my perspective on the need for standardized messages.

Perspectives from Other Developers

To gauge the consensus on this topic, I reached out to fellow developers for their insights on SCM. Here are some notable responses:

1. Promoting Thoughtful Commits: One developer noted that their team only enforced a conventional commit format because the quality of commit messages was lacking. Implementing a standard encouraged team members to think more critically about their commits, leading to improved clarity and relevance in their messages.

2. Preference for Squashed Merges: Another developer expressed a preference for squashed merges, where multiple commits are combined into a single commit upon merging a pull request (PR). This approach simplifies the commit history, as the main branch only reflects the PR merges, complete with references to ticket numbers. The developer noted that the standardized format was largely generated by bots, further reducing the need for manual input.

3. Linking Commits to Issues: A third developer shared that their team follows a specific commit message structure: foo(bar): a description of what was done. In this format, foo dictates aspects of their continuous integration (CI) flow, while bar serves as a ticket reference that links back to their issue tracking tool (Jira). This method creates a clear connection between each commit, the associated ticket, and the related PR, facilitating better traceability.

The Debate: Are Standardized Commit Messages Over-Hyped?

With these varying perspectives, a question arises: Are standardized commit messages over-hyped? While some developers appreciate the structure and clarity provided by conventions like conventional commits, others find little inherent value in them, especially if the messages are still human-readable.

It’s essential to recognize that the discussion isn’t about the quality of commit messages but rather the syntactic rules governing their format. Meaningful, descriptive messages are crucial, but the specific conventions—capitalization, imperative forms, or the entire specification of conventional commits—can be seen as secondary to the message’s clarity and purpose.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate surrounding standardized commit messages is multifaceted, with valid arguments on both sides. While I appreciate the benefits of machine-readable formats for changelog generation and automated processes, the most significant takeaway is that a commit’s atomic nature and clarity should be prioritized over rigid syntactic rules.

Ultimately, the best approach to commit messages may vary depending on the team’s preferences, workflow, and tools in use. As we continue to develop and maintain codebases, it’s crucial to foster communication that enhances collaboration, regardless of the specific format we choose to adopt.

What are your thoughts on standardized commit messages? Are they a necessity in your workflow, or do you find flexibility more beneficial? Share your experiences and insights in the comments!