10 months ago
- The author critiques the Conventional Commits specification, particularly its requirements on commit message formatting.
- Key criticisms include the mandatory type prefix in commits, which the author argues is more useful for automated tools and should be in the footer.
- The author points out inconsistencies, such as the exception for 'BREAKING CHANGE' not following the same format as other footer tokens.
- The optional nature of indicating breaking changes is criticized for making it harder for tools to parse commit messages.
- The FAQ section on the Conventional Commits website is also critiqued for lacking detailed instructions on correcting commit types and promoting squash merges, which can lead to loss of commit history.
- The author advocates for commit messages that prioritize human readability over machine readability, suggesting improvements for better tool compatibility.