Was digging through a project at work today where some guy in 2014 made 100+ commits in a single day and the only one that had a comment said “upgrading to v4.0”.
Conventional commits all the way! Even if I don’t use the keywords (feat, fix, etc.) I always write the comment in imperative tense; the message should tell you what happens if you merge it.
Right now I’m on a new project with a teammate who likes to rebase PR branches, and merge with merge commits to “record a clean history of development”. It’s not quite compatible with the atomic-change philosophy of conventional commits. I’m thinking about making a case to change style, but I’ve already failed to argue the problem of disruption when rebasing PR branches.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@beehaw.org
All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.
Conventional commits all the way! Even if I don’t use the keywords (feat, fix, etc.) I always write the comment in imperative tense; the message should tell you what happens if you merge it.
Enforced by pre-commit, conventional commits has cleaned up our commit logs and changelog so much.
That’s pretty neat. Is there a forked version that adds ticket number as a mandatory first class citizen? Cause that’d be darn near perfect.
I totally agree.
Right now I’m on a new project with a teammate who likes to rebase PR branches, and merge with merge commits to “record a clean history of development”. It’s not quite compatible with the atomic-change philosophy of conventional commits. I’m thinking about making a case to change style, but I’ve already failed to argue the problem of disruption when rebasing PR branches.