News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic by keybored on Thursday September 26, 2024 @03:34PM (#41662294)
> I find conventional commits helpful when deciding what makes an atomic change.

I already know if I’m doing a fix, a refactor, a “chore” etc. Conventional commits just happen to be the ugliest way you can express those “types” in what looks like English.

Re:Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic by imiric on Thursday September 26, 2024 @04:16PM (#41662812)
Yeah, well, that's just, like... your opinion, man.

But I've worked with many, many developers who don't strictly separate commits by type this way. I myself am tempted to do a fix in the same commit as a refactor many times. Conventional commits simply suggest, well, a convention for how to make this separation cleaner and more explicit, so that the intent can be communicated better within a team. I've found this helpful as a guide for making atomic changes. Whether or not you write your commit messages in a certain way is beside the point. But let me know if you come up with a prettier way to communicate this in a team.

Re:Git-absorb: Git commit –fixup, but automatic by keybored on Thursday September 26, 2024 @09:41PM (#41665452)
The prettier way is English.