romangg added a comment.
In D24068#534288 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D24068#534288>, @ngraham wrote: > In terms of changelogs, you can already use the FEATURE: and CHANGELOG: tags in your commit message. That's already there and similarly we're not actually using it. Might it make sense to develop better documentation around using those throughout all of KDE? I think that the FEATURE and CHANGELOG keywords are not often used is not a problem of missing documentation - it is there after all and I linked to it - but that they have issues on a conceptual level: The FEATURE keyword associates a Bugzilla bug with a commit. But often a new feature is not implemented because of a Bugzilla feature request but there was a Phabricator task for example. The CHANGELOG keyword is cumbersome to use because the summary line most often already tells sufficiently what the commit is about. So it would only be a repetition of what is already written. Besides why should we want to have a disparity between changelog and commit log anyway? In comparison using the prefix allows to reuse the subject, organize a changelog in categories and filter out irrelevant commits for example changes to autotests. In a standard case information is not repeated unnecessarily: most often already now one writes something like "Fix the poor behavior in component". Now one writes: "fix(component): improve behavior". At last the "special keywords" are something only we in KDE use as far as I know, but the Conventional Commits specs, respective the Angular guideline, is something a lot of other projects use and their adaption shows that it seems to work fine at least for them. Also there are sysadmin/ci tools available to make use of it. 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
