Programmer Humor

19149 readers

1179 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Feyter@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

BurningTurtle@programming.dev

415

Coomitter be like (lemm.ee)

submitted 2 months ago by sag@lemm.ee to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] efstajas@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Honestly, I've worked with a few teams that use conventional commits, some even enforcing it through CI, and I don't think I've ever thought "damn, I'm glad we're doing this". Granted, all the teams I've been on were working on user facing products with rolling release where main always = prod, and there was zero need for auto-generating changelogs, or analyzing the git history in any way. In my experience, trying to roughly follow 1 feature / change per PR and then just squash-merging PRs to main is really just ... totally fine, if that's what you're doing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while conv commits are neat and all, the overhead really isn't really always worth it. If you're developing an SDK or OSS package and you need changelogs, sure. Other than that, really, what's the point?

[–] mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 months ago

You can always water it down. The point is to have some order in the commits. Otherwise is just messy.