Hey everyone, I would like to hear people's opinions on using semantic/conventional commits. I see people occasionally using it, but unless we make it a "standard" and mandatory (and fail CI if commits are not following it), IMHO there is virtually no benefit for the whole community.
I am now preparing the June provider's release (a little delayed due to my unavailability - sorry) and with 60+ providers it's somewhat manageable without it. I semi-automatically prepare and maintain all the changelogs now for all providers (I implemented a very simple heuristics to help with it and classify the commits based on the commit message) but it requires quite some effort to re-classify the changes. Not much, it's manageable, but having semantic/conventional commits would make my (and other release managers) life a bit easier. For those who are not familiar with - here is the "gist" of it with links: https://gist.github.com/joshbuchea/6f47e86d2510bce28f8e7f42ae84c716 In short - here are examples of semantic/conventional commit messages: feat: add hat wobble fix: fix the hole eaten by moles doc: describe the hat etiquette style: make hat follow latest hat conventions refactor: replace hat underlying construction to be more sturdy test: test the hat when it's raining chore: cleanup the hat, it became dusty a bit Questions: * What's your experience with using the semantic/conventional commits? * Do you like/dislike the semantic/conventional commits? * Should we make them mandatory? * Maybe there are other ways we can achieve the same results? J. -- +48 660 796 129
