Related discussion from last year ("Use semantic pull request"):
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r076232c60600238f37277497f66fb7eb9507869b92403c5ef96dcb3e%40%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3EOn Sun, 13 Jun 2021 at 12:56, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > I would like to hear people's opinions on using semantic/conventional > commits. I see people occasionally using it, but unless we make it a > "standard" and mandatory (and fail CI if commits are not following > it), IMHO there is virtually no benefit for the whole community. > > I am now preparing the June provider's release (a little delayed due > to my unavailability - sorry) and with 60+ providers it's somewhat > manageable without it. I semi-automatically prepare and maintain all > the changelogs now for all providers (I implemented a very simple > heuristics to help with it and classify the commits based on the > commit message) but it requires quite some effort to re-classify the > changes. Not much, it's manageable, but having semantic/conventional > commits would make my (and other release managers) life a bit easier. > > For those who are not familiar with - here is the "gist" of it with links: > https://gist.github.com/joshbuchea/6f47e86d2510bce28f8e7f42ae84c716 > > In short - here are examples of semantic/conventional commit messages: > > feat: add hat wobble > fix: fix the hole eaten by moles > doc: describe the hat etiquette > style: make hat follow latest hat conventions > refactor: replace hat underlying construction to be more sturdy > test: test the hat when it's raining > chore: cleanup the hat, it became dusty a bit > > Questions: > > * What's your experience with using the semantic/conventional commits? > * Do you like/dislike the semantic/conventional commits? > * Should we make them mandatory? > * Maybe there are other ways we can achieve the same results? > > J. > > > -- > +48 660 796 129
