|
|
|
|
|
|
by keybored
636 days ago
|
|
|
> I find conventional commits helpful when deciding what makes an atomic change. I already know if I’m doing a fix, a refactor, a “chore” etc. Conventional commits just happen to be the ugliest way you can express those “types” in what looks like English. |
|
|
But I've worked with many, many developers who don't strictly separate commits by type this way. I myself am tempted to do a fix in the same commit as a refactor many times. Conventional commits simply suggest, well, a convention for how to make this separation cleaner and more explicit, so that the intent can be communicated better within a team. I've found this helpful as a guide for making atomic changes. Whether or not you write your commit messages in a certain way is beside the point. But let me know if you come up with a prettier way to communicate this in a team.