Skip to content

ADR 4: Conventional commits in this repository

Status

Accepted

Context

What is the issue that we're seeing that is motivating this decision or change?

Similar to branching in [[adr-2-branch-naming]], with the workspace now encompassing multiple types of projects we need to make sure that the scope component is fleshed out in the conventional commit specification. Should it only be the package we are working on? Or should it be more specific (package/subpackage)?

Decision

What is the change that we're actually proposing or doing?

MUST include package. MAY include further specification using a path-like format:

  • bills/cli
  • core/logging
  • sfra/plot

Consequences

What becomes easier or more difficult to do because of this change?

Easier: Know how to name conventional commits and improve consistency; specify for LLM coding tools.

Harder: Slightly more to consider/parse in git commit messages.