31 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
31 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: >
|
|
Are conventional commits worth it?
|
|
pubDate: 2023-11-24
|
|
permalink: >-
|
|
archive/2023/11/24/are-conventional-commits-worth-it
|
|
tags:
|
|
- software-development
|
|
- git
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
For some time, I've written commit messages following the Conventional Commits specification, where you start the subject with the type of commit - such as `feat`, `fix`, `chore`, `docs`, etc - and provide an optional scope before completing the subject line (the first line in the message).
|
|
|
|
Then, it is encouraged to add a longer body to the message and provide any links and task IDs that the change relates to.
|
|
|
|
Now I've been using it for a while, I'm deciding whether it adds value for me and whether it's worth me using it.
|
|
|
|
I don't create automatic CHANGELOG files from the commit types.
|
|
|
|
The scopes are usually arbitrary, it's unclear which scope (or scopes) should be added, or it repeats the module name I'm working on (which I could see from the Git diff).
|
|
|
|
While I see value in writing descriptive commit messages, I'm unsure if I do to format the subject line in this way.
|
|
|
|
## Here's the thing
|
|
|
|
I like to use an iterative approach to my workflow. I like to try things and see if they work for me. If not, I can stop or continue iterating.
|
|
|
|
If working with others, should you focus on writing commits that categorise commit messages within their subject or writing descriptive commit messages that capture why the change is needed?
|
|
|
|
Which provides the most value when looking back at the Git log in the future?
|