romangg added a comment.
In D24068#534280 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D24068#534280>, @ngraham wrote: > Is this Conventional Commits spec something we think we want to use elsewhere? I'm sure I can get used to it, but the prefix thing seems kind of rigid and I'm wondering what it really adds other than a bunch of process that will need to be explained over and over again to each patch submitter. As I would interpret it the `type` is first of course a concise way to tell what the commit is about but it is also there to limit a commit to a single purpose prompting to keep the commit size limited. The optional `scope` you can often already see in several KDE projects being used what indicates that this is rather a natural thing to do. Currently the format is just not in a consistent manner. Often box brackets are used (KWin for example) but these lead to problems with certain git tools I heard in the past. Having the prefix also improves creation of changelogs. I wrote a mail about the overall idea as something to unify in all of KDE little while ago to the mailing lists: https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2019-August/091237.html So you can see this here as a test run. REPOSITORY R104 KScreen REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D24068 To: romangg, #plasma Cc: ngraham, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart
