Inconsistency in types about conventionalcommits.org HOT 8 CLOSED

feat is a type, : is just a separator. when the scope is omitted, it looks like feat: short description. Its the same as feat(): short description or feat(*): short description

from conventionalcommits.org.

About the 2 you are not excluding the colon from the type, just moving it at the end of type+scope definition.

About the one i agree, we can also think about the difference between feat and improve, and rename them so that they may be more explicit.

For example in my company we are using conventional commits, and sometimes we have some issue about feat meaning. improve may fit better the case (also another verb but this one is the more generic), because it is not a feature, the are not improving the performance, we are not refactoring but we are improving the implementation of the functionality.

from conventionalcommits.org.

I think it's related also to #28. We can change in a more explicit and clear way.

from conventionalcommits.org.

In spec, the type field is specified as a verb, whereas feat itself is a noun, and so does chore, style, perf, etc.

It's definitely a noun not a verb. PR welcome.

In summary, the types are exampled with colon, e.g.fix:, feat:, while its definition is [optional scope]:, which excludes colon from type name.

I don't really understand this and it seems correct to me. Maybe @damianopetrungaro got the point.

from conventionalcommits.org.

@stevemao the formal definition is <type>[optional scope]:, so I guess feat is a valid type while feat: may not? See also json spec, its pair consists of string : value, so in a captious way, string is valid instead of string:.

from conventionalcommits.org.

I've seen all three forms in the angular project. Maybe we should recommend one of them? cc @bcoe

from conventionalcommits.org.

@stevemao and @doodlewind wdyt about split feat in improve and another verb for add a feature (@doodlewind any suggestion?)

So that we have both the use cases separated and well defined?

from conventionalcommits.org.

@damianopetrungaro I'm open to suggestions on that. The angular convention was designed for non monorepos and feat was just meant to be for end users. In a monorepo this could be confusing.

from conventionalcommits.org.