Skip to content

Comments

feat!: remove improvement#16

Merged
AndersDJohnson merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
feat-remove-improvement
Dec 21, 2019
Merged

feat!: remove improvement#16
AndersDJohnson merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
feat-remove-improvement

Conversation

@AndersDJohnson
Copy link
Member

@AndersDJohnson AndersDJohnson commented Nov 3, 2019 •
edited
Loading

I'm proposing we consider removing the improvement type, which is no longer recommended in the Conventional Commits spec. It was in their 1.0.0-beta.4 release, but removed in 1.0.0.

It was added here in #13, as did other tools like conventional-changelog/commitlint#832. But this addition was questioned in #15, which I'd agreed with per my comments #13 (review) and #15 (comment).

This also caused some other turbulence with other tools, such as commitizen/cz-cli#681 and conventional-changelog/commitlint#832.

Maybe it's too late? 🤷‍♂

This was referenced Nov 3, 2019
Merged
Open
Closed
Merged
@NathanUrwin
Copy link

NathanUrwin commented Nov 5, 2019

@AndersDJohnson I do not think it is too late to remove improvement. Going forward in the future I believe exceptions can be made for the edge case commits that include the improvement type. I agree with your comment on #15 that this project follows the conventional commits specification, and does not make any type decisions itself.

@skeggse
Copy link

skeggse commented Nov 22, 2019

The good news is that it may not have spread too far: tools like semantic-release didn't start supporting the improvement commit type (ref semantic-release/commit-analyzer#149)

@jamime
Copy link

jamime commented Dec 4, 2019

I also came across this issue today when using commitizen with cz-conventional-changelog then using commitlint with @commitlint/config-conventional.

@skeggse
Copy link

skeggse commented Dec 16, 2019

@AndersDJohnson are there any blockers to moving forward with this change?

@AndersDJohnson
Copy link
Member Author

AndersDJohnson commented Dec 17, 2019

@skeggse None other than making sure we have consensus and an admin taking the time to merge it! Almost ready?

@sc250024
Copy link

sc250024 commented Dec 18, 2019

Yes! This is interfering with commits as improvement is not in the spec.

@sc250024
Copy link

sc250024 commented Dec 18, 2019

I also came across this issue today when using commitizen with cz-conventional-changelog then using commitlint with @commitlint/config-conventional.

Ditto

@AndersDJohnson AndersDJohnson merged commit 958396a into master Dec 21, 2019
@AndersDJohnson AndersDJohnson deleted the feat-remove-improvement branch December 21, 2019 00:26
@AndersDJohnson
Copy link
Member Author

AndersDJohnson commented Dec 21, 2019

Released and published as v3.0.0!

@Chia-ChunHsu Chia-ChunHsu mentioned this pull request Aug 10, 2020
Closed
@amannn amannn mentioned this pull request Sep 17, 2020
Merged
amannn added a commit to amannn/action-semantic-pull-request that referenced this pull request Sep 17, 2020
@amannn
chore!: Update dependencies (#31)
2aa2eb7 
BREAKING CHANGE: Remove support for `improvement` prefix (as per commitizen/conventional-commit-types#16).
amannn added a commit to amannn/action-semantic-pull-request that referenced this pull request Sep 17, 2020
@amannn
chore!: Update dependencies.
b9bc3f1 
BREAKING CHANGE: Remove support for `improvement` prefix (as per commitizen/conventional-commit-types#16).
@renovate renovate bot mentioned this pull request Jun 8, 2021
Merged
1 task
@renovate renovate bot mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2021
Merged
1 task
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@LinusU LinusU LinusU approved these changes

@jimthedev jimthedev Awaiting requested review from jimthedev

+1 more reviewer

@skeggse skeggse skeggse approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

breaking change enhancement

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@AndersDJohnson @NathanUrwin @skeggse @jamime @sc250024 @LinusU