It's so frustrating. We had a reasonably okay process going on, but then another team started working in our repository on their feature completely ignoring the fairly lightweight commit message format we ask them to uphold, and they were like "doesn't matter, we'll squash merge it". But it's not even about the commit messages; it's about the workflow they have behind it, where they commit and push as often as they hit ctrl+s, which to me communicates they're just hacking around until it works.
A commit should be atomic; it should be a complete change with code and tests all adjusted, and ideally a message explaining what and why it changes. (In practice / in my line of work this doesn't happen because it's all front-end code implementing some poorly documented user story in jira, but hey).
If I'm ever involved in hiring again I'll add git usage to my list of criteria. Along with whether they can actually touch type. I can't believe that the standards have dropped so far that basic computer skills are no longer necessary apparently.
A commit should be atomic; it should be a complete change with code and tests all adjusted, and ideally a message explaining what and why it changes. (In practice / in my line of work this doesn't happen because it's all front-end code implementing some poorly documented user story in jira, but hey).
If I'm ever involved in hiring again I'll add git usage to my list of criteria. Along with whether they can actually touch type. I can't believe that the standards have dropped so far that basic computer skills are no longer necessary apparently.