I find conventional commits a bit better. We have applied this approach in our team and it's much easier to understand what's going on it the codebase just by reading commits. It also helps a bit when we're preparing a plan for demonstrating our changes to other teams (along with the issues).
<type>(<scope>): <subject>
<body>
<footer>
Your JIRA/GitHub/GitLab/etc. issue would be in the footer section maybe with an automating tag (Fix/Close).
Thank you for your input Defman. We actually tried to follow exactly this format initially, but then we felt like the ticket number is something we use a lot on all levels, so we need it up there. Using the ticket, type, and scope leaves so little space for the subject, so we had to take something out, which was the type.
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.
I find conventional commits a bit better. We have applied this approach in our team and it's much easier to understand what's going on it the codebase just by reading commits. It also helps a bit when we're preparing a plan for demonstrating our changes to other teams (along with the issues).
Your JIRA/GitHub/GitLab/etc. issue would be in the footer section maybe with an automating tag (
Fix/Close).Thank you for your input Defman. We actually tried to follow exactly this format initially, but then we felt like the ticket number is something we use a lot on all levels, so we need it up there. Using the ticket, type, and scope leaves so little space for the subject, so we had to take something out, which was the type.