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

[FEAT] Add version of project prompt #326

Open
mattpsvreis opened this issue Sep 12, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

[FEAT] Add version of project prompt #326

mattpsvreis opened this issue Sep 12, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@mattpsvreis
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe

Not really.

Describe the solution you'd like

Today, we get this:

refactor: 💄 Refactoring something

But I personally want to be able to get this:

2.0.1.3 refactor: 💄 Refactoring something

Or better yet:

[2.0.1.3] [REFACTOR]: 💄 Refactoring something

Which should simply get the version of the project from wherever in the source code. Say for a Node app, it'd come from package.json.

You can also have an option for the user to specify the version, which in my opinion would be better.

This is just something that I've found being used in many places and started adding to my commit messages.

I am aware that I could just use branches for these, but where I work at we tend to use branches for separate features rather than whole versions. Say we're working on 2.2 of a project but there are eleven new features, and I need to write a quick update to fix some minor bugs so I end up creating 2.2.1, but then I need to add a hotfix which is then 2.2.1.1. The branch cascading would be insane, no? I'd rather be able to just continue to use my branches for feature-specific separation and use the commit message to show in which version I am. Some people think different and that's okay.

As is with some other options, this can be disabled by default if this runs away from normal conventions, but to have the opportunity to have it rather than not have it at all is always going to be better imo.

@mattpsvreis mattpsvreis added the question Further information is requested label Sep 12, 2023
@kevinah95
Copy link

I think this is out of the scope of this awesome extension, because it is not aligned to the Conventional Commit Specification.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants