91 lines
No EOL
4 KiB
JSON
91 lines
No EOL
4 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "079f2e09-0827-458e-91d3-6dd5b8b80c56"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:12+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": "Should you include issue IDs in your commit messages?"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2024-05-15T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:12+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2024\/05\/15\/should-you-include-issue-ids-in-your-commit-messages",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"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=\"http:\/\/default\/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
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |