[markbao]

I’m all for standardization but you could just use this argument to keep any suboptimal status quo in place. XML is good enough and a standard. SOAP is good enough and a standard. etc.

The claim is that Conventional Commits are good enough and standardized enough that having another structure isn’t really worth it. But “worth it” is subjective. I’d say that if you are making commits and reading PRs every work day, and the conventional commits format causes a little bit of friction, that friction can add up. Having another option other than seeing conventional commits as a law of nature gives options for teams who prefer it. (Most teams aren’t generating changelogs anyway.)

[hn_throwaway_99]

The new structure needs to be "better enough" that it overcomes the built-in deficits of the older structure, and it can't introduce so many new problems that make it a net negative.

JSON was definitely a huge improvement in simplicity and readability compared to XML for many contexts. Similarly REST a much better option than SOAP (and all of these are examples of the general over-engineered, design-by-committee architectures that came out of the late 90s/early 00s - see also the original EJB spec - before a larger trend towards simplicity and ease of use won out).

But it this case, a lot of the differences just feel like potayto/potahto, i.e. minor stylistic preferences. And I have been in jobs where more than 50% of my time was doing code reviews, and while often there were e.g. some linter rules or whatever that I found suboptimal, it was a lot easier to just go with it than waste the energy to have the battle over why I think for loops are actually OK.