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”.

  • f314@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • hallettj@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • bloopernova@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Enforced by pre-commit, conventional commits has cleaned up our commit logs and changelog so much.

    • key@lemmy.keychat.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.