Skip to content
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
161 lines (125 sloc) 7.97 KB

Four rules for effective collaboration

Whether you're working in a large team or solo, effective collaboration is predicated upon keeping a clean version control history. (Yes, dealing with your own past follies also counts as collaboration.) Here we'll consider a clean history to be one in which commits are Conventional, Context-Providing, Complete, and Focused. Each of these four rules (or guidelines) is described in detail below.

It is important to note that these rules only apply for commits that are shared and/or eventually merged into a stable branch (usually master). But this is not the only situation in which commits can be used - quick and dirty commits are very helpful when considered as drafts. These rules are not meant to dissuade one from committing early and committing often. During the early divergent phase of problem solving, when many different approaches are considered, following these rules would only inhibit the creative process.

The rules


Every commit message should follow the conventions of its project.

There are a few very basic conventions that almost every project follows, but the specifics vary greatly from project to project. What's important, is to follow whatever conventions have been agreed upon. Are all commit titles (the first line of the commit message) in the project in imperative mood? Every new title should also be in the imperative mood. Are commit titles prefixed by the general nature of the change (e.g. documentation/bug/feature/refactoring)? Every new commit should also have the prefix.


Every commit message should explain the commit's reason for being.

The message should provide (within reason) all possible context for the commit. Here are some of the questions that the message should answer:

  • Why is this change necessary?
  • What assumptions is it based on?
  • Were any alternative solutions considered?
  • Why was this solution chosen from among the alternatives?
  • Are there any non-obvious implications that this change has?

References to other relevant information may be included. Some examples:

  • A ref to another commit. E.g. a bug fix may refer to the commit that introduced the bug for providing additional context. Usually the abbreviated SHA (e.g. c71598f) of the commit is sufficient, but more comprehensive styles, such as the one used for git itself, can be considered.
  • Link to library/language or any other documentation. Often it also makes sense to actually quote the most relevant bits within the message as well, to avoid losing the context when the link stops working.
  • Link or a reference to the relevant ticket/issue for which this commit was created.


Every commit should be complete.

This means that every commit should leave the system in a state where: 1) the code compiles, 2) its tests pass (note that requiring end-to-end tests to pass isn't always reasonable, but lower level tests should always pass), and 3) the linter does not complain. This means, for example, that a bug fix and the related test changes should be in the same commit.


Every commit should only do a single thing.

What this means precisely is often arguable, but what it means in general is usually well understood. For example, refactoring should be separate from an addition of a feature. Formatting changes should be separate from bug fixes. A commit should only fix a single bug at a time, not two or three.

Note that keeping commits Complete forces one towards bigger (less in terms of lines and more in terms of logical changes) commits, whereas keeping them Focused pushes towards smaller commits. This is so because essentially they're different perspectives or gages for reaching the same ultimate goal - having a commit that does just enough and not a bit more.


The benefits are best illustrated by looking at different phases or processes of development and seeing how following the specific rules affects that phase/process.

Code review

Conventional commits are easy to grasp at a glance. Without having to know the idiosyncrasies of the author, it is usually clear, in broad terms, what the commit does. Just by looking at its title. Also, Conventional commit messages should never break the tooling. E.g. if a commit message's body is not wrapped at the recommended 72 characters, then the message becomes hard to read both on GitHub and in the terminal.

Context-Providing commits are just a joy to review. The author has already answered the most likely questions the reviewer might think of while looking at the diff. This reduces a lot of time consuming back-and-forth. In addition, if the commit does not provide enough context, then often reviewers may feel overwhelmed by the change and only check it for syntax errors and typos, without delving into the bigger questions. This way the team might miss out on important insights.

Complete commits minimize the amount of information the reviewer has to keep in their head. For example, if a function's interface is changed in one commit and its callers are changed in another, then the reviewer must either remember how the function was exactly changed, when looking at the callers, or they must jump between the two commits. Both options complicate the process and lower the chance of catching issues. In addition, when commits are Complete, the reviewer can compile the code and run the tests to verify the correctness of every commit.

Focused commits often make it possible to review at all, with any sort of confidence. If formatting changes are clumped together with a feature addition, then important parts of the new feature might be buried in the diff of the dumb formatting change and might be missed by the reviewer. If a few bug fixes, a new feature, and some refactoring is all in a single commit, then comprehensive reviewing is usually impossible and any reviews that the commit does get are necessarily shallow.

Debugging or understanding existing code

This section covers the general concept of understanding already existing (or old) code, either for debugging or some other purpose. Most commonly deeper understanding is required for debugging purposes, but there are other reasons as well. For example, figuring out why a feature was developed in a certain way, when implementing something similar in another part of the system. In the following text we'll use the word "debugging", but the benefits equally apply to the other purposes as well.

Debugging is very similar to reviewing, so many of the same benefits apply. However, because debugging usually happens a while after the change was made, the author may no longer be available or they might not remember the specifics. For this reason, it is of paramount importance that the commits be Context-Providing. There just isn't anyone to ask anymore.

Debugging situations also illustrate why it's often (but not always) more beneficial to put the context into the commit and not into comments in the code. Namely, the code comments might have been changed or deleted by this time. And although the original code comments are still available within the diff of the commit, if it's not a practice to check the commits for the context (which is usually the case, if commits don't provide enough context) then the diff will likely not be looked at.

Complete commits make it possible to use git bisect, which may turn out to be very helpful for finding the source of certain issues.

Inspiration and additional reading

You can’t perform that action at this time.