[chuckadams]

I like the idea of conventional commits, but the lack of many useful categories is a real `chore:` to where I end up making my own, which tooling of course doesn’t recognize. The codification of something called conventional commits strikes me as kind of counterintuitive anyway.

[imiric]

Well, they're just commonly used commit types. I don't follow the "spec" strictly and have my own conventions as well. I don't use any tooling that reads them, and I'd probably write my own if needed.

I mainly find them helpful for sticking to atomic commits. If a change doesn't align with the commit type, or it touches too many parts of the codebase, that means it should be in a separate commit.