Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So very true. And I struggle with this. "Why should I write something out when tools could do it for me? Isn't me specifying it, then, just me being overly verbose?" But tools often don't - and may never.

I'm curious:

In any tool for any revision control system ever: in a list of commits, are the commit messages augmented with something useful beyond the basics? ("Basics" being e.g. the first 'n' characters of the human-provided commit message, a revision identifier, a timestamp, and a username.)



I can vaguely remember that PVCS had a way of explicitly linking tickets to commits, TFS probably has this as well.


Github has a way of linking issues with commits. You just mention the issue in the commit e.g. 'This commit closes #1' and i believe the issue will close with that as well, but it will show up in the issue.

Jira and other ticketing systems can often read repos and look for ticket ids. In my commits at work I just mention PRJCTNAME-142 and that'll link to a ticket and aggregate in jira all the commits/pull requeusts/branches... tagged with that


Our internal system has some integration between Jira and Github, such that if you comment a commit with the ticket number then you can see them all in the Jira ticket.


RTC works like that. You can also set up rules so that you can't even check in without linking a ticket.


that tool would have to be quite specialized though and needs to enforce test driven development... how else could it check different benchmarks?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: