3 ms·
Please - be aware of what you're doing relying on conventional commits. I saw projects using them to later do automatic merges between branches, and I think thi
by _ZeD_ 5y ago
Please - be aware of what you're doing relying on conventional commits.
I saw projects using them to later do automatic merges between branches, and I think this is the "wrong level of abstraction".
I think there is an underlying problem if you are mixing "fix" and "feature" (for example) commits in a "feature" branch.
Why the fix is in a feature branch?
I think it's more important to have the distintion on a "branch" level, linked in a 1-1 relation to a jira/feature/bugtracker issue and whatnot.
- jasonpeacock 5y agoNow you're talking about branching strategies, not commits, which is a different and much larger topic :) I keep it simple - branches are short-lived. I don't even like feature branches, I break features into a series of changes and push each change to `main`, incrementally delivering all the changes needed to make the feature useful while keeping `main` healthy. More details at: https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com/ https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com/