Linus Torvalds Slams “Polluted” Git Commits in Linux Kernel
▼ Summary
– Linus Torvalds criticizes the inclusion of a “Link:” argument that provides no new information and wastes time.
– He expresses frustration that the link did not explain why his initial reaction to the change was wrong.
– Torvalds demands that links should only be added if they contain supplementary information not already present.
– He states that most links he encounters are useless and only serve to make his job more difficult.
– Torvalds emphasizes that his primary role involves making sense of pull requests and rejects automated additions that complicate this process.
Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux and Git, recently expressed significant frustration over what he calls “polluted” Git commits within the Linux kernel development process. His sharp critique centers on the misuse of commit messages, particularly the inclusion of unnecessary links that fail to provide meaningful context or additional information.
In a strongly worded message, Torvalds highlighted his irritation with commit messages containing a “Link:” argument that merely points back to existing data rather than offering new insights or explanations. He emphasized that such practices waste valuable time and complicate the review process, especially when maintainers are left searching for justification behind code changes.
Torvalds made it clear that he values useful references when they serve a purpose, but he condemned the overwhelming majority of links as redundant and unhelpful. He called for developers to stop including automated or superfluous links unless they contribute substantial supplementary details, stressing that his role often involves deciphering pull requests, a task made needlessly difficult by low-quality commit annotations.
While acknowledging his own irritability on the subject, Torvalds reiterated that his primary responsibility involves evaluating change requests, and he expects clear, direct explanations rather than poorly justified or automated additions. His comments underscore a broader push for higher standards in collaborative open-source development, where clarity and efficiency remain paramount.
(Source: Developpez.com)
