49

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".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] f314@lemm.ee 37 points 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 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] key@lemmy.keychat.org 5 points 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.

this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
49 points (100.0% liked)

Programming

13361 readers
1 users here now

All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS