Can the semantic-pull-requests repo live in this org? #82

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2026-02-17T11:43:22-06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-02-17 11:43:22 -06:00

Originally created by @zeke on GitHub (Sep 13, 2019).

Hey folks! The maintainers of the @probot org are cleaning house! All repos that are not part of the core Probot product need to find a new home.

https://github.com/probot/semantic-pull-requests is a Probot app I maintain that ensures GitHub pull requests follow the Conventional Commits spec. I could move it to my personal account, but I prefer for projects to live in orgs whenever possible, to give them a better chance of long-term survival. 🐯

Would folks be open to moving the repo to this org?

cc @bcoe @hutson @stevemao @damianopetrungaro (members of this org)
cc @gr2m @jasonetco @tcbyrd (members of the @probot org)

Originally created by @zeke on GitHub (Sep 13, 2019). Hey folks! The maintainers of the @probot org are cleaning house! All repos that are not part of the core Probot product need to find a new home. https://github.com/probot/semantic-pull-requests is a Probot app I maintain that ensures GitHub pull requests follow the Conventional Commits spec. I could move it to my personal account, but I prefer for projects to live in orgs whenever possible, to give them a better chance of long-term survival. 🐯 Would folks be open to moving the repo to this org? cc @bcoe @hutson @stevemao @damianopetrungaro (members of this org) cc @gr2m @jasonetco @tcbyrd (members of the @probot org)

GiteaMirror commented

2026-02-17 11:43:24 -06:00

@bcoe commented on GitHub (Sep 13, 2019):

@zeke I'd be open to moving it here, what are other's thoughts? another potential home would be https://github.com/conventional-changelog/conventional-changelog, where we have a ton of tooling built around conventional commits, but I'm open to either (if the goal is to keep this a tight reference implementation of the spec).

@bcoe commented on GitHub (Sep 13, 2019): @zeke I'd be open to moving it here, what are other's thoughts? another potential home would be https://github.com/conventional-changelog/conventional-changelog, where we have a ton of tooling built around conventional commits, but I'm open to either (if the goal is to keep this a tight reference implementation of the spec).

GiteaMirror commented

2026-02-17 11:43:24 -06:00

@zeke commented on GitHub (Oct 11, 2019):

Hey again. Thanks for chiming in @bcoe. The bot is indeed designed to follow the spec as closely as reasonably possible, so I think this org is probably the best home.

Not a lot of feedback but based on your comment and the emoji reactions, it doesn't look like anyone's actively opposed to the idea. I'm a member of this org but not an owner, so I can currently make the transfer. Maybe I have owner access to do that?

@zeke commented on GitHub (Oct 11, 2019): Hey again. Thanks for chiming in @bcoe. The bot is indeed designed to follow the spec as closely as reasonably possible, so I think this org is probably the best home. Not a lot of feedback but based on your comment and the emoji reactions, it doesn't look like anyone's actively opposed to the idea. I'm a member of this org but not an owner, so I can currently make the transfer. Maybe I have owner access to do that?

GiteaMirror commented

2026-02-17 11:43:25 -06:00

@bcoe commented on GitHub (Oct 11, 2019):

@zeke you're an owner now, perhaps we can rope you in to editing the spec going forward too 😆

@bcoe commented on GitHub (Oct 11, 2019): @zeke you're an owner now, perhaps we can rope you in to editing the spec going forward too :laughing:

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-02-17 11:57:10 -06:00

[PR #82] [MERGED] Docs: Add clarification on commit type casing #278

Sign in to join this conversation.