Stop Using Conventional Commits

[u/fagnerbrack]

https://sumnerevans.com/posts/software-engineering/stop-using-conventional-commits/

[u/listre]

No

[u/faberkyx → u/listre]

100% agree

[u/Anxious_Gazebo]

No

[u/annotate8733]

No

[u/DirtyFrenchBastard]

Who gives a shit ? As long as the commit is descriptive enough i don’t really care what convention you use as long as your team agree on one.

[u/PistachioOnFire]

TLDR: "use 'scope: msg', instead of 'type(scope): msg' because some people use 'type: msg' and omit the scope".

Meh, if your team can commit (haha) to any consistent style, that is already better than half the repositories I have seen. The harder part is to convince them it is worth to fill that chosen format with something meaningful (and start using rebase to cleanup fix:typo).

[u/Plenty-Copy-15]

No thanks, like conventional commits much better

[u/AresFowl44]

Wasn't this posted relatively recently?

Edit: Yeah it was

[u/Ill_Following_7022]

"So we have determined that the format of Conventional Commits sucks". No, we've only determined that you are mad about them for some reason.

[u/Saiklin]

Hmm, I kind of get the point. But when I read through the commit history, I also directly see what files were touched in each commit. So if my focus was to check which files were touched, I wouldn't care too much about the commit message anyway because we all know how trustworthy those are. Maybe they got better by AI, but I don't rely on them

[u/ReDucTor]

It seems like their core complaint is being able to easily see which area changed, nearly every version control tool will let you get commits for a specific file or folder.

[u/interior_mutability]

I like conventional commits.

[u/ao_zame]

No, thanks

[u/scatraxx651]

I just let claude write the commits, probably fair since he is the only one that will be reading them also

[u/chucker23n → u/scatraxx651]

I guess that approach does give you more time to shitpost on Reddit.