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".
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.
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.
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.