|
|
|
|
|
by lugg
2433 days ago
|
|
Why? (Honest question, hear me out) Is it a vocab consistency thing? I see pretty consistent vocab used across orgs anyway, so given there is shardd domain knowledge / language at play, im not sure what the goal for standardization is? Don't take this the wrong way, I use a lot of these when appropriate, but I don't think I could agree that refactoring must be just a refactor, and I don't think I want to limit anyone's commits to this list of change types either. Forcing changes into these words means a lot of stuff is pointlessly bucketed when more appropriate wording could be used. Say I want to push a commit "prioritise shipping route a over route b". So I have to put it under start? Optimise? Fix? Why? Prioritise is the right word, why not just use that? Why play mind games when we have a whole dictionary to draw from? |
|