As you explored the issue and tried to understand the problem, you filled your head up with important details about how the frobinator works, what a frob even is, what a slow frob looks like, and why a slow frob shouldn't be permitted in this context. All of this information is necessary for you to understand the problem and code a patch that resolves it. Moreover, if this detail wasn't necessary for you to code the patch, you wouldn't have had the slow frobbing in the first place. It would have been fairly obvious at the time of original development.
Commit messages, when combined with a powerful blame engine in your version control, can give you really powerful insight into what you were thinking at the time. This can be incredibly handy when someone asks a question later.
Yesterday, Junio Hamano, git maintainer extraordinaire, asked me why git-gui implements its own clone function. When I wrote this code, it must have been really obvious to me why it needed to reimplement the same logic as
git clone. But I wrote it back in 2007. I've done a ton of things since then. There's no way I can remember what I was doing, or why I was doing it. I do however remember thinking, "this code is done, it works, I'll never have to look at or think about it again". Famous last words.When Junio asked this question... I honestly couldn't remember what I was doing. I'm usually somewhat against reinventing the wheel, and I try to avoid rewriting something unless I seem to have a good reason for it. So I really was looking at his question saying, "yea, why did I do that there...".
Fortunately, I write fairly detailed commit messages, and
git blame is an incredible tool:
$ git blame lib/choose_repository.tcl
...
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 633)
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 634) $o_cons start \
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 635) [mc "Counting objects"] \
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 636) [mc "buckets"]
...
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 673) update
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 674)
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 675) file mkdir [file join .git objects pack]
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 676) foreach i [glob -tails -nocomplain \
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 677) -directory [file join $objdir pack] *] {
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 678) lappend tolink [file join pack $i]
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 679) }
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 680) $o_cons update [incr bcur] $bcnt
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 681) update
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 682)
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 683) foreach i $buckets {
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 684) file mkdir [file join .git objects $i]
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 685) foreach j [glob -tails -nocomplain \
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 686) -directory [file join $objdir $i] *] {
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 687) lappend tolink [file join $i $j]
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 688) }
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 689) $o_cons update [incr bcur] $bcnt
81d4d3dd (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-24 08:40:44 -0400 690) update
ab08b363 (Shawn O. Pearce 2007-09-22 03:47:43 -0400 691) }
It would seem that
81d4d3dd, and ab08b363 are commits adding code to do a clone.
$ git show 81d4d3dd
commit 81d4d3dddc5e96aea45a2623c9b1840491348b92
Author: Shawn O. Pearcespearce.org>
Date: Mon Sep 24 08:40:44 2007 -0400
git-gui: Keep the UI responsive while counting objects in clone
If we are doing a "standard" clone by way of hardlinking the
objects (or copying them if hardlinks are not available) the
UI can freeze up for a good few seconds while Tcl scans all
of the object directories. This is espeically noticed on a
Windows system when you are working off network shares and
need to wait for both the NT overheads and the network.
We now show a progress bar as we count the objects and build
our list of things to copy. This keeps the user amused and
also makes sure we run the Tk event loop often enough that
the window can still be dragged around the desktop.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearcespearce.org>
$ git show ab08b363
commit ab08b3630414dfb867825c4a5828438e1c69199d
Author: Shawn O. Pearcespearce.org>
Date: Sat Sep 22 03:47:43 2007 -0400
git-gui: Allow users to choose/create/clone a repository
…
Rather than relying on the git-clone Porcelain that ships with
git we build the new repository ourselves and then obtain content
by git-fetch. This technique simplifies the entire clone process
to roughly: `git init && git fetch && git pull`. Today we use
three passes with git-fetch; the first pass gets us the bulk of
the objects and the branches, the second pass gets us the tags,
and the final pass gets us the current value of HEAD to initialize
the default branch.
If the source repository is on the local disk we try to use a
hardlink to connect the objects into the new clone as this can
be many times faster than copying the objects or packing them and
passing the data through a pipe to index-pack. Unlike git-clone
we stick to pure Tcl [file link -hard] operation thus avoiding the
need to fork a cpio process to setup the hardlinks. If hardlinks
do not appear to be supported (e.g. filesystem doesn't allow them or
we are crossing filesystem boundaries) we use file copying instead.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearcespearce.org>
So 30 seconds after being asked, I've managed to remember this was mostly about git-gui on Windows, where Cygwin can be pretty slow for file operations, and hardlinks are available on NTFS if your application knows how to make them. By doing the clone logic within Tcl, which is a native Win32 application, we can bypass Cygwin overheads, including the need to fork and execute a bunch of commands from the
git-clone.sh shell script. Because, back in 2007, git-clone was still just a shell script.In hindsight, that paragraph above should also be in the commit messages. And I probably should have ported git clone to C instead. Its C now, but not because of my efforts. And now git-gui maybe should just call it. It would have made git-gui a whole lot smaller.
You can follow the rest of the thread.
Posts
5 comments :
Thanks for the post, I pointed some 2nd year CS students at it to explain why high quality commit messages are important. (It is at times horrifying to see the quality of the commit messages by 1st and 2nd year CS students.) Hopefully this'll motivate them to Do The Right Thing (TM) from now on ;).
I agree that the information you know when you code, especially the "why" need to be written down.
Code written over a year ago is as obscure as if it were written by someone else. However, I think
that the information you know ought to be provided as literate programming (ref: Knuth) rather than
in changelogs. That is, the "how" and "why" information needs to be in paragraphs of text that
reside in the source code, next to the code that implements the ideas. Having the information stored
in changelogs implies that I know what to look for and by that time I'm already deep into debugging.
The information in a literate source file format is available when I start looking at the code.
Yes, this kind of information should be in comments, not commit messages.
Nothing against the point you make here, but the pathetic lack of comments in the choose_repository.tcl source file prompts me to say this: Such explanations belong in the source file, not in the meta information of a possibly inaccessible repository. I absolutely second Tim Daly's point.
I think you should take a look at git's git respository to better understand the advantage of commit messages over inline comments. The git repository has approximately 250 thousand lines of code and only about 20 thousand lines of comments. But it has 200 thousand lines of commit messages. Having such a detailed history is incredibly useful.
Commit messages are more powerful than inline code comments for several reasons.
- They are associated with a single logical change, which has a very specific motivation to comment on. This is useful if you want to know why a problem was solved in a particular way. If you read the code, however, you do not usually want to know "why was this implemented like this, and not like that." First, you want to know what the code does and how it works. Having inline explanations for the motivation behind writing the code would only be a distraction at that point.
- Inline comments are often misleading, because they are not maintained with the code. It is hard to keep all comments up-to-date, because you have to notice that a certain comment pertains to a change you made and is possibly invalidated by it.
- Commit messages, on the other hand, maintain themselves, because they belong to a version and can therefore be associated with a change. If code that you commented on in a commit message is changed later, the commit message will automatically be updated with the new change. And you are still able to dig out the original commit that created the code.
The event that the repository is not available to view the commit message information is quite unlikely, especially because git by default copies all history information locally. If you're going to read the code without its history, you might as well read it without syntax highlighting, ctags or grep.
Post a Comment