mirror of
https://github.com/semver/semver.git
synced 2026-07-11 09:22:32 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #410] Conventional Commits #3019
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/semver#3019
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 @zeke on GitHub (Nov 21, 2017).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/410
Now that semver has a new home, @groundwater and I were pondering ways to improve user experience and education around semver both for producers and consumers of semantically versioned things.
conventionalcommits.org comes to mind as a guide to taking the principles of semver and actually applying them to a workflow. I think it would be useful if we had a page on semver.org that catalogued efforts like this.
cc @Haacked @gr2m @bcoe
@gr2m commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2017):
I’d love that. Would tooling like semantic-release be a good fit to be listed somewhere, too?
@zeke commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2017):
I think so. 👍
@bcoe commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2017):
@zeke I love this idea, just let me know what you'd need from me on the conventionalcommits.org end of things.
@haacked commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2017):
I'm open to it. This should probably be an issue on semver/semver.org then because we wouldn't include these things in the spec, just in the homepage.
@zeke commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2017):
Maybe the next step is a pull request. I will give that a shot soon, for some value of soon.
@silkentrance commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2017):
what has this marketing for a bloated repercussion of existing best practices to do with semver?
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2017):
@silkentrance, SemVer is part of a web of common, sometimes best-practices, but is always under pressure to be modified to explicitly codify those out-of-scope practices or solve problems it's not intended to solve. It would help if there were links established between the various sites that cover these practices and a conventional means for establishing them.
@silkentrance commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2017):
@jwdonahue that is exactly what I wanted to learn from you.
@silkentrance commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2017):
@jwdonahue please cover these external documents under either "lessons learned" and "best practices" 👍
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2017):
@silkentrance, not sure what you're asking me to do with that last comment. I am still just stumbling around here at GitHub, not familiar with the local common practices yet.
@bcoe commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2017):
@silkentrance http://conventionalcommits.org/ was inspired by SemVer (I actually even asked @mojombo if he'd be offended if I worked from the original Jekyll site).
The idea around conventional-commits is that
fixmaps topatch,featmaps tominor, andBREAKING CHANGEmaps tomajor.I now use this commit message convention for all my open-source projects (yargs, nyc, etc). It helps me a ton, with regards to keeping track of my project's version numbers, and making sure that I adhere appropriately to SemVer.
@zeke, @Haacked sounds like a pull request is in the works, please feel free to flag me on the review 😄
@zeke commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2017):
I might not get to this right away, so if anyone wants to take a shot at it feel free. If no one gets to it before me, I will start a WIP pull request early to avoid any duplicated efforts.
@silkentrance commented on GitHub (Nov 28, 2017):
@jwdonahue It was late, I was tired and thought that I had completed my sentence... and failed blatantly at it. Just ignore the last comment made.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2017):
@zeke
I started a wiki the other day and just went back and added a link to https://conventionalcommits.org/. Is that anything like what you have in mind?
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2018):
Well the wiki's gone now. @zeke and @Haacked, any chance this is going to lead to a PR?
@zeke commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2018):
Hi @jwdonahue I don't know what happened to the wiki, but I'd be in favor of not having a wiki, and instead just using files in the repos as documentation.
In related news, there's now a @conventional-commits GitHub org that houses the Conventional Commits spec and website: https://github.com/conventional-changelog/conventionalcommits.org/issues/70 -- my plan is to spruce up the website a bit and adopt some CC-oriented projects into the org.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Aug 25, 2018):
@zeke, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at https://versionmeta.org/ and http://versionschema.org/. Very rough proposals that I'd like to get some stake-holders involved in. Any feed-back you have will be greatly appreciated.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Aug 25, 2018):
@zeke, @Haacked, I think what we need here is some rearrangement of the readme.md, so that it becomes a brief description and a bunch of links to the spec, work-in-progress, guidance on contributing, a list of known tooling that correctly implements semver, etc.
It's time to light up the project tab.
@alexandrtovmach commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2020):
Good idea for #573
@1atAlcone commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025):