mirror of
https://github.com/conventional-commits/conventionalcommits.org.git
synced 2026-03-22 12:44:37 -05:00
Application of RFC 2119 #43
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/conventionalcommits.org#43
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @hutson on GitHub (Aug 25, 2018).
Originally assigned to: @bcoe on GitHub.
Re-evaluate how we are applying the terminology defined in RFC 2119 in the Conventional Commits specification.
Came up in https://github.com/conventional-commits/conventionalcommits.org/issues/77#issuecomment-415851108
@hutson commented on GitHub (Aug 25, 2018):
cc @bcoe
@damianopetrungaro commented on GitHub (Oct 13, 2018):
@hbetts @bcoe any news on this?
@hutson commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2018):
I believe this issue is simply waiting on someone to have sufficient time to review the specification and ensure each use of MUST, SHOULD, etc., is being used correctly for the desired result.
@damianopetrungaro commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2018):
Who wants to do it?
So I can assign it 😄
@damianopetrungaro commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2019):
@hutson @zeke @raamdev @bcoe @stevemao who wants to pick this one?
I think it is pretty important for us.
@hutson commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2019):
I would love to, but I just can't commit to doing the work at this time 😢
@bcoe commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2019):
@hutson @damianopetrungaro I'll make an effort to take this on. I essentially just need to re-read
RFC 2119, go back through our spec, and correct the usage of our terminology I believe? i.e., we care about the "Specification" section and "Summary" section only?@damianopetrungaro commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2019):
Yup @bcoe that's it :)