I commit far too little, and I don’t use branches so all my FEAT and FIX and DOC are mixed up, and I… Oh yeah I could just do add, and commit each of them separately… Damn.
Or you could refrain from the dogmatic commit style that serves literally zero purpose because in any healthy software project nobody is ever reading the commit history like that.
History and good explanations of what was changed and why is incredibly useful for being able to determine if something is a bug, a feature, and why something was written a particular way.
I’m not super stringent on commit style, but it absolutely helps to structure commit messages, especially in larger projects where they’re being worked on piecemeal.
I commit far too little, and I don’t use branches so all my FEAT and FIX and DOC are mixed up, and I… Oh yeah I could just do add, and commit each of them separately… Damn.
Or you could refrain from the dogmatic commit style that serves literally zero purpose because in any healthy software project nobody is ever reading the commit history like that.
History and good explanations of what was changed and why is incredibly useful for being able to determine if something is a bug, a feature, and why something was written a particular way.
I’m not super stringent on commit style, but it absolutely helps to structure commit messages, especially in larger projects where they’re being worked on piecemeal.
it looks cool and I can get back to developing software I abandoned when I have a better commit history