Are you still using conventional commits? If not why not?

Question

I remember conventional commits being really popular a few years ago (eg angular). These days I don&rsquo;t see it as often. I&rsquo;m curious if people stopped using it or if it just never took off?

nivertech · Accepted Answer

I think the main advantage of the conventional commits is that it promises to generate changelogs automatically.
The disadvantage is that it hard to convince other people on the team, and need to use a local git pre-commit hooks, otherwise it's easy to forget to use a correct commit message, and the pain of re-writing the commit messages later ;(
IMO the most important part of the commit message is to include the issue/ticket number (if relevant).

Comevius · Answer

I think most of us can get away with being sloppier than that.I like the simple structure of the Linux git commits. They start with a scope, which is how the directories in the repository are organized. I would rather spend effort on coming up with proper scopes instead of categorizing commits into types. Individual commits are often part of a bigger story, so such categorization is not even that useful.

rozenmd · Answer

We use changesets instead: https://github.com/changesets/changesetsGetting folks to write decent, useful commits is hard enough. making them confirm to a parseable format wasn't worth the hassle.

mdmglr · Answer

No. The issue ID with a brief description is sufficient IMO.

Are you still using conventional commits? If not why not?

I remember conventional commits being really popular a few years ago (eg angular). These days I don’t see it as often. I’m curious if people stopped using it or if it just never took off?

We use changesets instead: https://github.com/changesets/changesets
Getting folks to write decent, useful commits is hard enough. making them confirm to a parseable format wasn't worth the hassle.

No. The issue ID with a brief description is sufficient IMO.