4 ms·
I won't recommend it specifically, but I recommend to have a standard. I prefer a standard that I don't like rather than a not having a standard. Other options
by lucasoshiro 2y ago
I won't recommend it specifically, but I recommend to have a standard. I prefer a standard that I don't like rather than a not having a standard. Other options that I remember:
- The kernel patch descriptions: https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchPhilosophy https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchPhilosophy. Used by the repository that Git was created for (the Linux kernel) and Git itself;
- Gitmoji: https://gitmoji.dev/ https://gitmoji.dev/, similar to conventional commits but using emoji
Personally we may like them or not. But again, even though I don't like it, I would a history with "<bug emoji>: do foo in bar" instead of a history with a lot of commits only named "fix", "now it works" and things like that.
- keybored 2y agoYou don’t need a standard for everything. If standard means a machine-readable format. > Personally we may like them or not. But again, even though I don't like it, I would a history with "<bug emoji>: do foo in bar" instead of a history with a lot of commits only named "fix", "now it works" and things like that. It is good to have standards which will disqualify low-quality commit messages.