Match config conventional with new spec [WIP]#767
Conversation
|
@byCedric we're starting to roll out commit linting more internally, so I'm excited for this work 😄 a couple things we should make sure we capture:
|
|
Awesome! 🎉 And thanks for helping focussing on the important parts!
Right now I'm in Thailand, celebrating the engagement of a good friend of me. Maybe @marionebl or @escapedcat can lend a hand? When I get back I'll prioritize this a bit more 😁 |
|
One thing I thought of that we should properly "inform" developers using Commitlint when we open up the types. Maybe also provide a short upgrade guide to keep Commitlint as is for them (with the stricter types). But I think we can cover this fairly easy in the final stage, just before releasing 😁 |
|
@byCedric we do have the new parser As for being strict regarding types, I think I agree, we should just make sure it's well documented how a developer provides their own set of types, or turns off type enforcement as the case might be 👍 Have fun in Thailand, appreciate your hard work on this project. FYI, here's the bot I've been building in action: deployed from a framework we're working on here: |
BREAKING CHANGE: this includes the new breaking change shorthand and is therefore probably a breaking change
9d7f0eb to
7c17ffc
Compare
The specification only provides feat and fix as a guideline, its not a hard limitation. Because of this, it should accept any type.
|
Let's keep this PR open for now. The |
|
Discussed this between @byCedric @escapedcat and me. The current plan is to relax That being said we will move the current, stricter set to |
|
After #821 did the most part of this I believe we're good here for now. Happy to re-open this if anyones has further feedback. |
Description
Fixes #658
Motivation and ContextUsage examplesHow Has This Been Tested?Types of changes
Checklist: