Hello team,
We introduce commit conventions in our organizations that will help us automate many release tasks - automatically collect commits into changelog, determine semantic version of new releases, and collect commits into release notes.
We will follow Conventional Commits https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format, it requires you to provide commit type and optional `!` after the commit type to indicate that your commit introduces a breaking API change. You can find more information at Conventional https://linux-system-roles.github.io/contribute.html#conventional-commits-format Commits format https://linux-system-roles.github.io/contribute.html#conventional-commits-format section on our site. It also generally improves commits hygiene in our org.
A correct commit format will be verified by a CommitLint GitHub Action, it will verify each commit in the PR to follow conventional commits format, and also the PR title to follow the format for consistency. The action won't be able to verify if we provide a correct commit type and if we indicate a breaking change correctly, so we must pay special attention to it.
One concern is with the *Squash and merge *strategy that PRs currently use. When you click the *Squash and merge* button in GitHub UI, it lets you manually modify the resulting commit and push it to main right away. This is a subject to human error because the resulting commit goes straight to main, and in the case of a typo we would need to force push to main to fix it. It is best to move to a *Rebase and merge *strategy instead to ensure that all commits pushed to main have passed CommitLint checks. This is not ideal but the pay off is huge.
Let me know if you have any concerns or questions.
Thank you
I am returning the *Squash and merge* option for PRs. Still, GitHub web UI requests you to manually modify the resulting commit, ensure that you write a meaningful commit message because it will appear in changelog and release notes.
Now, commitlint verifies commits prior to adding them to changelog, this helps to avoid possible errors.
Thank you
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 8:58 AM Sergei Petrosian spetrosi@redhat.com wrote:
Hello team,
We introduce commit conventions in our organizations that will help us automate many release tasks - automatically collect commits into changelog, determine semantic version of new releases, and collect commits into release notes.
We will follow Conventional Commits https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format, it requires you to provide commit type and optional `!` after the commit type to indicate that your commit introduces a breaking API change. You can find more information at Conventional https://linux-system-roles.github.io/contribute.html#conventional-commits-format Commits format https://linux-system-roles.github.io/contribute.html#conventional-commits-format section on our site. It also generally improves commits hygiene in our org.
A correct commit format will be verified by a CommitLint GitHub Action, it will verify each commit in the PR to follow conventional commits format, and also the PR title to follow the format for consistency. The action won't be able to verify if we provide a correct commit type and if we indicate a breaking change correctly, so we must pay special attention to it.
One concern is with the *Squash and merge *strategy that PRs currently use. When you click the *Squash and merge* button in GitHub UI, it lets you manually modify the resulting commit and push it to main right away. This is a subject to human error because the resulting commit goes straight to main, and in the case of a typo we would need to force push to main to fix it. It is best to move to a *Rebase and merge *strategy instead to ensure that all commits pushed to main have passed CommitLint checks. This is not ideal but the pay off is huge.
Let me know if you have any concerns or questions.
Thank you
--
Sergei Petrosian, RHCE
He / Him / His
Software Engineer, RHEL System Roles
Red Hat Prague, Czech Republic https://www.redhat.com
spetrosi@redhat.com M: +420792444506 IRC: spetrosi https://www.redhat.com
Hi team,
it's me again, I an sorry for a lot of noise on this subject, turned out that how I planned it initially does not work so good, so I am applying more changes.
The previous approach of collection each commit to the changelog has a big drawback - developers write commit messages for other developers, not for end users. The commit must state clearly why the code was changed, and because of it, often commit messages include information that end users do not care about.
So, it makes more sense to keep commit messages for developers, and move the user-aimed information in PR description and title.
I am reverting the commitlint check on commits, commitlint will now only check PR titles to comply with the format. And commit messages do not require any formatting.
Some more information on this can be found in the updated contribute guide:
https://linux-system-roles.github.io/contribute.html#write-a-good-pr-title-a...
Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:02 AM Sergei Petrosian spetrosi@redhat.com wrote:
I am returning the *Squash and merge* option for PRs. Still, GitHub web UI requests you to manually modify the resulting commit, ensure that you write a meaningful commit message because it will appear in changelog and release notes.
Now, commitlint verifies commits prior to adding them to changelog, this helps to avoid possible errors.
Thank you
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 8:58 AM Sergei Petrosian spetrosi@redhat.com wrote:
Hello team,
We introduce commit conventions in our organizations that will help us automate many release tasks - automatically collect commits into changelog, determine semantic version of new releases, and collect commits into release notes.
We will follow Conventional Commits https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/ format, it requires you to provide commit type and optional `!` after the commit type to indicate that your commit introduces a breaking API change. You can find more information at Conventional https://linux-system-roles.github.io/contribute.html#conventional-commits-format Commits format https://linux-system-roles.github.io/contribute.html#conventional-commits-format section on our site. It also generally improves commits hygiene in our org.
A correct commit format will be verified by a CommitLint GitHub Action, it will verify each commit in the PR to follow conventional commits format, and also the PR title to follow the format for consistency. The action won't be able to verify if we provide a correct commit type and if we indicate a breaking change correctly, so we must pay special attention to it.
One concern is with the *Squash and merge *strategy that PRs currently use. When you click the *Squash and merge* button in GitHub UI, it lets you manually modify the resulting commit and push it to main right away. This is a subject to human error because the resulting commit goes straight to main, and in the case of a typo we would need to force push to main to fix it. It is best to move to a *Rebase and merge *strategy instead to ensure that all commits pushed to main have passed CommitLint checks. This is not ideal but the pay off is huge.
Let me know if you have any concerns or questions.
Thank you
--
Sergei Petrosian, RHCE
He / Him / His
Software Engineer, RHEL System Roles
Red Hat Prague, Czech Republic https://www.redhat.com
spetrosi@redhat.com M: +420792444506 IRC: spetrosi https://www.redhat.com
--
Sergei Petrosian, RHCE
He / Him / His
Software Engineer, RHEL System Roles
Red Hat Prague, Czech Republic https://www.redhat.com
spetrosi@redhat.com M: +420792444506 IRC: spetrosi https://www.redhat.com
systemroles@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Sergei Petrosian