[lucasoshiro]

I won't recommend it specifically, but I recommend to have a standard. I prefer a standard that I don't like rather than a not having a standard. Other options that I remember:

- The kernel patch descriptions: https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchPhilosophy. Used by the repository that Git was created for (the Linux kernel) and Git itself;

- Gitmoji: https://gitmoji.dev/, similar to conventional commits but using emoji

Personally we may like them or not. But again, even though I don't like it, I would a history with "<bug emoji>: do foo in bar" instead of a history with a lot of commits only named "fix", "now it works" and things like that.

[keybored]

You don’t need a standard for everything. If standard means a machine-readable format.

> Personally we may like them or not. But again, even though I don't like it, I would a history with "<bug emoji>: do foo in bar" instead of a history with a lot of commits only named "fix", "now it works" and things like that.

It is good to have standards which will disqualify low-quality commit messages.