Log messages for revision control by yourself

Question

I use version control extensively. When I'm working by myself, I still use it, and find many good things about it. I know I'm 'supposed' to put in good messages etc, but find that usually the date of a commit and all the tools for checking diffs etc are enough. I often end up putting in junk messages like 'changes'.

I guess this is a weird question, but, what do others use as their log messages when they're making commits in repositories that only they are using? Is there any problem with not leaving messages?

I happen to use git, but this question is more general.

Answer 1

I'm a solo developer using version control as well. I recently started using an issue tracking system that monitors the messages, so mine have gotten better and at least reference an issue number when there is one. The rest of the time, I try to at least generally state what areas changed in a short sentence or two.

But every once in a while, I still get lazy (or am half asleep) and type in things like "fixed a bug".

Answer 2

You should put in messages as meaningful as those you would put into code that has multiple developers. There's usually little difference between someone else looking at your changes in a couple of days, and you looking at them 12 months down the track. There's a good chance, in both those situations, that the person looking will have no idea why the change was made :-)

I even go so far as to use proper change control, even for the stuff I do solo. That means every change to the code base has to have either a change request or a bug report (with full documentation).

That makes my life a lot easier when I need to understand why something was done. I've got better uses for my "wetware" than trying to remember every little change and why it was done. Far better to let the machine remember it - its memory is so much better.

And, in my opinion, if you can't be bothered doing it right, don't do it at all. Just revert to the cowboy-coder mentality and save yourself some effort.

Doing it right doesn't take that much extra effort and the rewards are substantial. It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.

Answer 3

For me it depends on the nature of the fix. Sometimes, its just one word. "Backup", or "copy changes". However, if something that caused me a lot of grief, I'll document my changes a lot more extensively. If it is open source and I won't be there all that long, I document my changes very extensively. svn -diff ( and then document all my changes that way...:)

Bug fixes that are identified by a number in another system, need to be in the change log.

I'll, grant you that "Fixed bug" isn't very good in the change log, but if it a simple bug then maybe that will do.

I don't think there is a good and fast rule, but your entry should be proportional to the amount of time you spent doing the code. A copy change? spelling mistake? not that much of a message needed.

Did you spend 2 hours fixing a bug? Yep! Long commit message.