3 ms·
I'd rather not but not because of the emoji but because atm I don't like categorizing commits in the first place. I've just tried doing it on a project and it f
by t0astbread 7y ago
I'd rather not but not because of the emoji but because atm I don't like categorizing commits in the first place. I've just tried doing it on a project and it felt pretty weird. Instead of just grouping single atomic changes like I'd usually do, I suddenly also have to think about what category fits a commit best and what to do if a commit satisfies multiple categories.
Thinking about it, emoji could actually help with this since it's easier to assign multiple categories to a commit without wasting a lot of character space. Still, what I'd rather want to see become a convention is an annotation in the commit's body that simply marks whether it's a major/minor/patch bump (or none). Plus optionally a line for the changelog. (Optionally because it allows commits to stay small while also not cluttering the changelog.)
Any thoughts/feedback/etc on this?