[jasonpeacock]

Conventional Commits restricts each commit to a single type of change - no mixing bug fixes, features, and refactoring. This supports exactly what you want - small, atomic commits.

Why can't each small change be labeled "feat"? A feature does not need to be contained in a single change as a "big bang" commit. I make multiple "feat" changes to deliver a feature.

I follow trunk-based development[1], so branches are many, transient, and disposable (and sometimes not even present if it's a small change I'm pushing straight to `main`).

The advantage of Conventional Commits is that I can go to my trunk (`main`), and scroll through the list of commits and see their purpose at a glance:

    feat: ...
    feat: ...
    build: ...
    fix: ...
    feat: ...
    chore: ...

I can immediately tell which changes were related to fixing the build, or a bug, or supported feature development.

[1] https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com/

[gknoy]

I nearly never look at individual commits in a PR.

I realize that this isn't applicable to all codebases, but when troubleshooting why a bug happens, or was intended to work, I find it a lot easier to look at a squashed commit than at the individual commits that went into a pull request. It does make `git bisect` less specific (and, to my shame, I've never used it), but having an overall commit message + pull request that points at a Jira ticket (or similar) helps identify whether something was intended behavior or not, and I've never felt the need to look deeper at whether part of it was a refactor/chore/feature. (If I had, I could look at the PR branch, presumably.)

In contrast, I've often had a stream of a 12-20 commits with tiny atomic (and often terrible) messages like "bugfix", "add test", "fix test", "fix linting", which I then try to rebase into some _coherent_ messaging of the time you espouse, where linting + typo fixes are rearranged and squashed on top of the commits that added them, and tests + features are added more closely together. It's very satisfying to do this, but in retrospect I've always felt like the time I spent doing that has been wasted --- it's hard, and often involves many iterations of conflict resolution when reordering commits, all for something that I or my team will squash anyway. The benefit gained (more readable commits of temporary value) never ever seems worth the time (Multiple hours) put into making them that way.