By "we" I meant machine and human. To ensure complete understanding among peers I agree a simple spec (which would likely be an extension of conventional commit) is in order. Even among the "example" repositories for conventional commit many commits do not follow the spec (i.e. Merge ...). Among other projects such as Deno, I see some commits by maintainers that do not follow the prefix approach as it is more clear without it.
Almost every feat commit I see in the wild starts out as "feat: add" so the prefix is redundant for machines here and a changelog generator should work with or without the prefix.
Even among my monorepos I found scope annoying though I added it habitually it doesn't really add to clarity much. So I'm glad it is optional.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
By "we" I meant machine and human. To ensure complete understanding among peers I agree a simple spec (which would likely be an extension of conventional commit) is in order. Even among the "example" repositories for conventional commit many commits do not follow the spec (i.e. Merge ...). Among other projects such as Deno, I see some commits by maintainers that do not follow the prefix approach as it is more clear without it.
Almost every feat commit I see in the wild starts out as "feat: add" so the prefix is redundant for machines here and a changelog generator should work with or without the prefix.
Even among my monorepos I found scope annoying though I added it habitually it doesn't really add to clarity much. So I'm glad it is optional.