The use of the word "chore" in many users of conventional commits has always riled me. I've always tended to favour the "linux kernel"[0] style of commit subject, which thankfully gets a mention here.

[0] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v7.0/process/submitting-patc...

My main complaint with conventional commits always was that they don't include an issue number in the commit title. It's not even mentioned in their standards as optional or something.

To me this is almost the most important information in a commit message. I don't know how often in the last 15 years I was cross checking the issue description referenced by some old commit to get the full context of a change. I also felt that this habit is kind of standard - until i had to learn about "conventional commits".

I never got the hype.

I quite dislike this style of writing titles. "Stop something". I seems very popular. It sounds very commanding and "I am definitely right about this". Why not write "In favour of something" or "A case against something" or something like that?

The real takeaway is that different projects have different requirements.

In over 30 years of using source control, I've never once worked on something where it's useful to include the component (article calls it scope) in the description in a standardised way. It's obvious what components are affected based on where in the source tree the affected files are. Similarly "bug", "fix" or "feature" adds no useful value. It's important or it wouldn't be checked in.

The only thing I've found useful, and which the article doesn't even consider, is a link / id for the relevant change request. The commit already contains all the information about what was done in the change, what's missing is the context about why.

Even on my solo projects I include a JIRA reference in square brackets before the description. If it's just something I randomly decided to fix during the course of development, I'll create a short 1 line JIRA to get an id and explain the why there.

Odd. The main reason to use this style of commit message is for CI/CD automation.

EDIT: I didn't see this covered in the article on my first pass. It is covered though. My apologies.

The type of the commit informs the automated workflows how to handle the commit. This is why it comes first.

For example, if you're performing CD, if you only commit a bunch of `fix: ` then only your semantic versioning patch version number is incremented. If you commit a `feat: ` then it's a minor version is bump. `feat! ` is a major version bump.

Even if you're not using CD for releases, semantic commit messages are sometimes used to automate change log generation. Granted, your change logs should not typically include the Git commit messages themselves — those are developer facing, not user facing.

I'd much rather people think deeply about summarizing their work. This helps others understand it but, more importantly, helps the developer understand what they did. If its hard to summarize, maybe it should be tightened up a little for instance. Enforcing a "schema" might help a tiny bit but also can cause people to check out a little as it can feel like just another meaningless process.

“The audience of a changelog is entirely different than the audience for a commit log!

A changelog is user-facing”

I'd say that ship has probably sailed. Most companies are happy with “Bug Fixes & Performance Improvements”. At least if they're not going to put the effort in, then a generated changelog is better than nothing.

The thing conventional commits are really helpful for is continuous delivery. Every merge to main can be automatically tagged with semver and shipped because the thought that goes into tagging and versioning has already been done by the developers when they wrote the commit message.

I fully recognise that it doesn't make sense for huge projects like the Linux kernel to do this. But for 99% of projects conventional commits combined with semver vastly improves the release process status quo and makes it easy to automate.

Want machine-readable? Use the footers/trailers.

I can not say anything nice about conventional commits. The format takes up space in the most-read part of the message. The categories or types have little information. They can be replaced with an honest English verb embedded in the subject like a sentence. It also reads way better with just a sentence instead of three kinds of punctuation (:, (), !). Okay, I can tolerate an "area" in the subject. And that predates this conventio.

At my dayjob we make a webapp for non technical people. I can write a changelog for that just fine (in norwegian). The commit messages are irrelevant to the users. And demanding that all commits should be good enough for an end-user changelog? That's not happening for us anytime soon.

Use footers/trailers instead.

The author's example of a conventional commit is not correct anyway IMO, which is maybe why they think the "fix" part is redundant:

> fix: prevent foo from bar'ing

The whole idea of conventional commit is:

> fix: [problem]

so the correct conventional commit would be:

> fix: foo bar'ing

which is succinct and perfectly fine.

I think any notation is use case specific and should be adapted to beat serve its domain.

However, actually writing a good commit message is an art form few have mastered.

I wrote a small natural language linter to teach my teams meaningful technical writing: https://github.com/codingjoe/word-weasel

I see more of these conventional commit-style comments recently and it feels like coming from Claude Code etc. It's a bit unsettling that not only training data but also random lines in the default system prompt affects this kind of software development norms in subtle and pervasive ways.

I have never been involved in a project where people make good commits. Having a convention at least forces people to make thoughtful one-liners.

As a solo developer, I rarely struggle to remember what changed yesterday. I often struggle to remember why I made a decision six months ago.

Conventional commits are most valuable to me as historical context rather than as a release-management tool.

The larger the project becomes, the more useful that context gets.

Definitely agree that generating change logs from commits leads to confusing change logs for people that expect to see what changed between versions. A big long list of commits is too granular. A curated and summarized list of changes is much more in-line with what most people expect when reading a change log.

I totally agree.

If one needs to put metadata in commits, usually better to just put it in a Git trailer.

https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers

`Co-authored-by: Alice` is a common one, but you can have anything in there.

I think some structure in commit messages is helpful, but not to the point where it gets in the way of effectively reflecting what the commit contains, why it was done, and any comments for future reference, e.g. potential regressions.

This entire essay is just about how it should be "<scope> <optional type>" instead of "<type> <optional scope>"?

I have long despised Conventional Commits for pretty much these reasons. Yes, it’s structure, but it’s not useful structure. Of the five things it claims to enable, three are nonsense and the other two are actively bad.

And it’s ugly.

(But I suppose I am talking primarily about the first line part. The “BREAKING CHANGE” bit is potentially actually useful, though being incompatible with git-interpret-trailers despite leaning on git-interpret-trailers for other footers seems a bit crazy.)

There’s a much less awkward way to keep a change log:

Keep a change log.

Couldn't agree more with this. The commit type tells me almost nothing and just wastes my time skipping over it. Scopes are way more useful.

Asides from the well made points here ('scope is more important than type' etc).

> something like fix, feat, chore, docs, or refactor

'Docs' are also part of the program, they need fixes too, and features need docs. If the docs don't match the features because they're not being updated when the code is, the docs are a lie and waste other developers time.

Also if you were writing a standard: why would you randomly abbreviate 'feature' but not 'refactor'? That sounds like a nitpick but standards require great thought, this is a bit of a smell that there hasn't been much thought into designing 'conventional commits'.

Finally: the name 'Conventional commits' is a land grab (reminds me of when someone made a JS Standard and called it 'StandardJS', ignoring every existing popular standard). From the article, the *actual* convention is 'scope: work"

- Linux

  subsystem: description

- FreeBSD

  prefix: description

- Git

  area: description

- Go

  package: description

- nixpkgs

  pkg-name: description

And then you have me, using gitmoji

Mine is “ticket id - Imperative phrase”. Then I write a “why” description of the changes if needs be. As for personal project, I quite like the scoped commits style.

terrible suggestion, people are awful at writing commit messages and the type is really helpful when you're reviewing history and want to know things at a glance

I don't care much what it says as in "fix", "chore" etc, but for me the main benefit is breaking changes indicated with "<type>!", something like "feat!: ... ".

This makes neovim plugin manager highlight the change differently which brings attention to it when you update stuff.

So please do use it instead of complaining!

I do like the suggestion of

scope!: ...

if it will be treated the same way with breaking changes reactions.

[dead]

dumb take, next

I really dont care about commit messages. Just create strict rules for branches that contains issue nr + description, and squash all commits on merging the PR.