Semantic Commit Messages

semantic-commit-messages.md

Semantic Commit Messages

See how a minor change to your commit message style can make you a better programmer.

Format: <type>(<scope>): <subject>

<scope> is optional

Example

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:

• https://www.conventionalcommits.org/
• https://seesparkbox.com/foundry/semantic_commit_messages
• http://karma-runner.github.io/1.0/dev/git-commit-msg.html

feat: Include Libraries?

But I'd also just include them in the same commit with
feat: Initial Commit

Hi folks, what is recommended for benchmark-related changes?

Hi folks, what is recommended for benchmark-related changes?

I would go with test.

Hi folks, what is recommended for benchmark-related changes?

How about "benchg" - Combines "bench" and "chg" (shorthand for "change"), or "benchmod" - "bench" and "mod" (modification).

Thanks both for the reply!

Which type will be the best for deleting unused code? IMHO "refactor" is not correct type for this

I use chore for deleting unsed code.

refactor would be to move currently used code to an unused code path.
chore should be used related to code that is being cleaned out and has no active paths to it. We also use chore when bumping dependency versions without any other code changes needed.

Which type can I use to commit a dependency update? I see the build(deps): type often, is it correct?

refactor