Any standard that wastes valuable space in the first line of the commit is a hard sell. I don't see the point in including fix/feat/feat! just for the sake of "easy" semantic versioning because generally you know if the next release is going to be major or minor and patches are generally only only after specific bugs. Scanning the commits like this also puts way too much trust in people writing good commit messages which nobody ever seems to do.

Also, I fucking hate standards that use generic names like this. It's like they're declaring themselves the correct choice. Like "git flow".

[–] mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can always adapt to your how repo. But yeah, that's the point. If you can trust people to make changes on a repo then you should be able to trust them in using some kind of commit structure.

Generic names are probably used in order to crate a familiar, easy to remember, structurized commit format.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

The generic name I'm complaining about is "conventional commits", not "fix" and "feat"