See how a minor change to your commit message style can make you a better programmer.
Format: <type>(<scope>): <subject>
<scope>
is optional
feat: add hat wobble
^--^ ^------------^
| |
| +-> Summary in present tense.
|
+-------> Type: chore, docs, feat, fix, refactor, style, or test.
More Examples:
feat
: (new feature for the user, not a new feature for build script)fix
: (bug fix for the user, not a fix to a build script)docs
: (changes to the documentation)style
: (formatting, missing semi colons, etc; no production code change)refactor
: (refactoring production code, eg. renaming a variable)test
: (adding missing tests, refactoring tests; no production code change)chore
: (updating grunt tasks etc; no production code change)
References:
CI: (or ci: if you're using the more standard conventions). The reason being that this should be getting exercised by the CI system first and foremost.
Personally, I don't. But I'm working on large projects with stringent code review requirements that require that all changes to code must happen in a standard commit and a merge commit is an empty commit that contains a cover letter at best.