Git is a very powerful tool installed on most of our machines. As developer, we use it every day. But, unfortunately, at first glance, this tool is...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I have added husky + commitizen + commitlint to our projects and it has been great.
Some benefits include an auto-generated change log. auto-incrementing semantic versioning. and increased visibility for breaking changes.
I would recommend it for every project.
Because we are using gitlab, we are using these packages semantic-release-gitlab and npm-publish-git-tag.
woaw those 2 libraries looks great! Thanks for sharing!
Wow! Thank you for this. Got it up and running yesterday, I'm loving it.
I've used Conventional Commits before but am not a fan of the prefix approach. It often seems arbitrary and makes a
git log --onelineless readable. We can accomplish the same with imperative mood english, just as git itself does.For instance, rather than writing:
You could instead write:
You could even remove the scope part as if your project is well organized the changed file should convey this same information.
This is human parseable and machine parseable. We both understand that a subject that starts with "Add" is a feature. You can extend that with regex validation for the other types. The subject can be directly copied into a changelog without stripping prefixes
Examples of git's own messages:
chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/
Depends. This is not standardised. You may not have the same understanding of your colleague
About the scope, I agree. In small project, it's not necessary. THat's why this field is optional btw.
By "we" I meant machine and human. To ensure complete understanding among peers I agree a simple spec (which would likely be an extension of conventional commit) is in order. Even among the "example" repositories for conventional commit many commits do not follow the spec (i.e. Merge ...). Among other projects such as Deno, I see some commits by maintainers that do not follow the prefix approach as it is more clear without it.
Almost every feat commit I see in the wild starts out as "feat: add" so the prefix is redundant for machines here and a changelog generator should work with or without the prefix.
Even among my monorepos I found scope annoying though I added it habitually it doesn't really add to clarity much. So I'm glad it is optional.
I am trying to use the semantic commit messages, but find it difficult to categorize some commits. What type would you on changing a configuration variable, say the password for a database?
hey Joyce.
I'm now using semantic commit messages with semantic release.
fix: I'm fixing a bug. Patch releasefeat: I'm adding a feature. Minor release.BREAKING CHANGE. I'm breaking compatibility. Major release.chore: everything that does not impact the user of my app/website.If you're changing the password in a db, I'd use the
chorekeyword.After feel free to add/remove keywords. For instance, in my blog, I added the
postkeyword for everything related to blogposts!I hope it helps you :)
Thank you for your response.
I am using this for an internal project (web application), so the concepts of release and breaking changes does not apply in my case. I am using
choreas of now.Some projects restrict
choretype to commits that does not cause a production code change.This is a good idea, also you can provide git hooks (client side or even better server side) to validate the formatting of the message and automatically reject commits that don't follow this rule.
I'm a really big fan of conventional commits! Haven't seen the
perf:before but I like it a lot. Thanks for the nice article 😄thank you!
About the
perfit's up to you. Feel free to add/remove keywords according to your project. For instance, in my personal blog I added thepostkeyword when I add a blogpost!Hey! Nice post.
What do I write in the commit message if it's a CSS update. chore(css): updated btn-theme?
Hey Sanjeev! Thank you!
Well it depends!
Is this color change a: