New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

feat: Accept revert, ci, and build semantic types by default #420

Open

scop wants to merge 1 commit into crate-ci:master from scop:feat/revert-ci-build

Contributor

scop commented Dec 31, 2024

To align with other similar tools and prominent prior art

https://commitlint.js.org/reference/rules#type-enum
https://jorisroovers.com/gitlint/latest/rules/contrib_rules/#ct1-contrib-title-conventional-commits
https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#type (where the conventional commits practice likely started from)
https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/master/index.json


          feat: Accept revert, ci, and build semantic types

bd7b83c

To align with other similar tools and prominent prior art
- https://commitlint.js.org/reference/rules#type-enum
- https://jorisroovers.com/gitlint/latest/rules/contrib_rules/#ct1-contrib-title-conventional-commits
- https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#type
- https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/blob/master/index.json

scop force-pushed the feat/revert-ci-build branch from f7dc753 to bd7b83c Compare

December 31, 2024 07:20

coveralls commented Dec 31, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12556778220

Details

0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
Overall coverage remained the same at 9.579%

Totals
Change from base Build 12405631011:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	50
Relevant Lines:	522

💛 - Coveralls

Collaborator

epage commented Dec 31, 2024

Generally we recommend creating issues before PRs (contrib docs)

More likely to search for past information in issues than PRs
Multiple PRs may end up being created for one need and if problem/solution discussion happens in them, then that splits the conversation
Avoid work that might need to go in a different direction (granted, this one isn't much work)

I feel like there is the chance for enough discussion, we should move this to an issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet