87 lines
3.8 KiB
YAML
87 lines
3.8 KiB
YAML
uuid:
|
|
- value: 52d92e80-5970-4525-b4b6-b30562f5573c
|
|
langcode:
|
|
- value: en
|
|
type:
|
|
- target_id: daily_email
|
|
target_type: node_type
|
|
target_uuid: 8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7
|
|
revision_timestamp:
|
|
- value: '2025-07-09T23:07:33+00:00'
|
|
revision_uid:
|
|
- target_type: user
|
|
target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
|
|
revision_log: { }
|
|
status:
|
|
- value: true
|
|
uid:
|
|
- target_type: user
|
|
target_uuid: b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849
|
|
title:
|
|
- value: 'What type of change are you making?'
|
|
created:
|
|
- value: '2025-07-06T23:06:53+00:00'
|
|
changed:
|
|
- value: '2025-07-09T23:07:33+00:00'
|
|
promote:
|
|
- value: false
|
|
sticky:
|
|
- value: false
|
|
default_langcode:
|
|
- value: true
|
|
revision_translation_affected:
|
|
- value: true
|
|
path:
|
|
- alias: /daily/2025/07/06/what-type-change-are-you-making
|
|
langcode: en
|
|
body:
|
|
- value: |-
|
|
Whilst I don't use the [conventional commits][0] approach to writing commit messages any more, I still think it's important to think about the type of change when a commit is made to a code repository.
|
|
|
|
Are you adding a new feature?
|
|
|
|
Are you fixing a bug?
|
|
|
|
Are you refactoring some code?
|
|
|
|
Conventional commits has you add keywords like `feat`, `fix`, `chore` and `refactor` to the commit message to identify the type of change being committed.
|
|
|
|
I don't add it to the commit message, but I do ask myself the same question.
|
|
|
|
What type of change is this?
|
|
|
|
If it's more than one, it probably needs to be split into separate commits.
|
|
|
|
This makes the intent clearer and the change easier to review.
|
|
|
|
If you need to refactor some code before adding a feature, they should be two separate commits.
|
|
|
|
If you're fixing a bug, commit a failing test first so it can be easily seen and then commit the fix that makes the test pass.
|
|
|
|
## Here's the thing
|
|
|
|
Having one change per commit makes it easier to write good commit messages as the change is simpler to explain.
|
|
|
|
If a commit includes multiple changes, it is more difficult and causes commit messages like `Updates` or `wip` - which I try to avoid, especially on client and open source projects.
|
|
|
|
[0]: /daily/2022/09/01/conventional-commits-changelogs
|
|
format: markdown
|
|
processed: |
|
|
<p>Whilst I don't use the <a href="/daily/2022/09/01/conventional-commits-changelogs">conventional commits</a> approach to writing commit messages any more, I still think it's important to think about the type of change when a commit is made to a code repository.</p>
|
|
<p>Are you adding a new feature?</p>
|
|
<p>Are you fixing a bug?</p>
|
|
<p>Are you refactoring some code?</p>
|
|
<p>Conventional commits has you add keywords like <code>feat</code>, <code>fix</code>, <code>chore</code> and <code>refactor</code> to the commit message to identify the type of change being committed.</p>
|
|
<p>I don't add it to the commit message, but I do ask myself the same question.</p>
|
|
<p>What type of change is this?</p>
|
|
<p>If it's more than one, it probably needs to be split into separate commits.</p>
|
|
<p>This makes the intent clearer and the change easier to review.</p>
|
|
<p>If you need to refactor some code before adding a feature, they should be two separate commits.</p>
|
|
<p>If you're fixing a bug, commit a failing test first so it can be easily seen and then commit the fix that makes the test pass.</p>
|
|
<h2>Here's the thing</h2>
|
|
<p>Having one change per commit makes it easier to write good commit messages as the change is simpler to explain.</p>
|
|
<p>If a commit includes multiple changes, it is more difficult and causes commit messages like <code>Updates</code> or <code>wip</code> - which I try to avoid, especially on client and open source projects.</p>
|
|
summary: ''
|
|
field_daily_email_cta:
|
|
- target_type: node
|
|
target_uuid: c74de3cf-5362-4d08-935a-a9d0d22fcb94
|