opdavies/oliverdavies.uk
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull requests Projects 1 Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Make all links relative

Browse source 
Now the abs_to_rel module is enabled, links can be made relative so they
work on the current environment.
This commit is contained in:
Oliver Davies 2025-05-29 16:42:25 +01:00
parent 0d359f81d6
commit 7a7dc297ca
349 changed files with 698 additions and 698 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
content/node.079f2e09-0827-458e-91d3-6dd5b8b80c56.json
View file

@ -82,9 +82,9 @@
],
"body": [
{
"value": "\n <p>It's shown in the examples of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oliverdavies.uk\/daily\/2023\/11\/24\/are-conventional-commits-worth-it\">conventional commits specification<\/a> as part of the optional footer data.<\/p>\n\n<p>But is it useful?<\/p>\n\n<p>It can be if your issue tracker is linked to your Git repository and you can click the issue ID in a commit message and see the issue.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, how often do teams change issue-tracking software or the project is passed to a different company that uses a different issue tracker?<\/p>\n\n<p>That makes the issue IDs that reference the old IDs useless as no one has access to the issues it references.<\/p>\n\n<p>I'd recommend putting as much information in the commit message itself and not relying on it being in an external source, like an issue tracker.<\/p>\n\n<p>The Git log and commit messages will remain even if a different issue tracker is used, or a different team starts working on the project, and that additional information isn't lost.<\/p>\n\n<p>I'm not against putting the issue ID in the commit message but don't do it instead of writing a descriptive commit message.<\/p>\n\n ",
"value": "\n <p>It's shown in the examples of the <a href=\"/daily\/2023\/11\/24\/are-conventional-commits-worth-it\">conventional commits specification<\/a> as part of the optional footer data.<\/p>\n\n<p>But is it useful?<\/p>\n\n<p>It can be if your issue tracker is linked to your Git repository and you can click the issue ID in a commit message and see the issue.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, how often do teams change issue-tracking software or the project is passed to a different company that uses a different issue tracker?<\/p>\n\n<p>That makes the issue IDs that reference the old IDs useless as no one has access to the issues it references.<\/p>\n\n<p>I'd recommend putting as much information in the commit message itself and not relying on it being in an external source, like an issue tracker.<\/p>\n\n<p>The Git log and commit messages will remain even if a different issue tracker is used, or a different team starts working on the project, and that additional information isn't lost.<\/p>\n\n<p>I'm not against putting the issue ID in the commit message but don't do it instead of writing a descriptive commit message.<\/p>\n\n ",
"format": "full_html",
"processed": "\n <p>It's shown in the examples of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oliverdavies.uk\/daily\/2023\/11\/24\/are-conventional-commits-worth-it\">conventional commits specification<\/a> as part of the optional footer data.<\/p>\n\n<p>But is it useful?<\/p>\n\n<p>It can be if your issue tracker is linked to your Git repository and you can click the issue ID in a commit message and see the issue.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, how often do teams change issue-tracking software or the project is passed to a different company that uses a different issue tracker?<\/p>\n\n<p>That makes the issue IDs that reference the old IDs useless as no one has access to the issues it references.<\/p>\n\n<p>I'd recommend putting as much information in the commit message itself and not relying on it being in an external source, like an issue tracker.<\/p>\n\n<p>The Git log and commit messages will remain even if a different issue tracker is used, or a different team starts working on the project, and that additional information isn't lost.<\/p>\n\n<p>I'm not against putting the issue ID in the commit message but don't do it instead of writing a descriptive commit message.<\/p>\n\n ",
"processed": "\n <p>It's shown in the examples of the <a href=\"/daily\/2023\/11\/24\/are-conventional-commits-worth-it\">conventional commits specification<\/a> as part of the optional footer data.<\/p>\n\n<p>But is it useful?<\/p>\n\n<p>It can be if your issue tracker is linked to your Git repository and you can click the issue ID in a commit message and see the issue.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, how often do teams change issue-tracking software or the project is passed to a different company that uses a different issue tracker?<\/p>\n\n<p>That makes the issue IDs that reference the old IDs useless as no one has access to the issues it references.<\/p>\n\n<p>I'd recommend putting as much information in the commit message itself and not relying on it being in an external source, like an issue tracker.<\/p>\n\n<p>The Git log and commit messages will remain even if a different issue tracker is used, or a different team starts working on the project, and that additional information isn't lost.<\/p>\n\n<p>I'm not against putting the issue ID in the commit message but don't do it instead of writing a descriptive commit message.<\/p>\n\n ",
"summary": null
}
],