3 ms·
> I find that conventional commit wastes space in the summary for little gain The things that conventional commits adds to commits were intended to be accompli
by teeray 2y ago
> I find that conventional commit wastes space in the summary for little gain
The things that conventional commits adds to commits were intended to be accomplished by commit trailers (Co-authored-by, Signed-off-by, etc.). Nobody is stopping anyone from having a “Change-type” trailer and a “Product-area” one too. You can have these in a template on your machine so it’s the same amount of typing involved. You can even tack on `--trailer` to `git commit` if you insist on using `-m` for everything and never filling out the commit body (commits devoid of detail are another plague on repositories).
- keybored 2y agoYes, trailers are built-in and serve the metadata purpose in a fair amount of projects already. There’s also more freedom to be verbose (“Change-For-Downstream-X”) since they are at the very bottom of the commit message. You can even filter out certain trailers with git log. The Conventional Commits people were apparently not aware of this capability when they started (understandable since the tooling is niche). You can see they had some back and forths about trying to get their “footers” in line with trailers and how they had to stumble across misunderstandings about how they work.