Skip to content
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.

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

Proposal: consider conventional commits + squash merge for go-libp2p #1931

Closed
p-shahi opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

Comments

@p-shahi
Copy link
Member

p-shahi commented Dec 5, 2022

Proposal

Consider using conventional commits: https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/#summary and squash merging PRs for go-libp2p

Motivation

Both of these improve commit history quality:

References

Thoughts: @MarcoPolo @marten-seemann

@marten-seemann
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure I see the value in this. The most important thing is to specify the component you're changing, as we've been doing ever since we made go-libp2p a mono-repo.

We're already using squash merges for the vast majority of our PRs. In some cases, when the commit history is very clean, we also might do a "normal" merge.

@MarcoPolo
Copy link
Collaborator

I think this is a good idea.

We already use squash merges, but it would be great to enforce this.

For conventional commits, I would love to see this. Especially the tooling that can give folks context whether something is a breaking api change or not at a glance.

@MarcoPolo
Copy link
Collaborator

When libp2p/github-mgmt#81 is closed, I suggest we try this for a bit. If we can enforce having the component name in there as well that would be a nice bonus.

@p-shahi
Copy link
Member Author

p-shahi commented Feb 22, 2023

Here's the PR to enforce conventional commits in go-libp2p: libp2p/github-mgmt#125

I suggest we enable this after 0.26.0

@marten-seemann are you open to trying it out?

@p-shahi
Copy link
Member Author

p-shahi commented Feb 27, 2023

Closing per: libp2p/github-mgmt#125 (comment)

@p-shahi p-shahi closed this as completed Feb 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants