feat: rewrite summary in simple English #559
Conversation
| which makes it easier to write automated tools on top of. | ||
| This convention dovetails with [SemVer](http://semver.org), | ||
| The Conventional Commits specification is a simple set of rules for commit messages. | ||
| It helps create an explicit commit history, and makes writing automation tools easier. |
| <type>[optional scope]: <description> | ||
| <type>([scope])[!]: <description> | ||
|
|
||
| [optional body] | ||
| [body] | ||
|
|
||
| [optional footer(s)] | ||
| [footer(s)] | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I those add a lot of value, why are we removing them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because by convention <> and [] already mark fields as required or optional. In this particular case it is not the specification that can be parsed or produced automatically, so the <> and [] can be removed if you prefer word descriptions.
|
I"ll close this for the moment @abitrolly , but we manage to acknowledge more users feel the same we can def. revisit this |
|
@damianopetrungaro that"s completely slipped off my radar. I don"t think the other people. who can not read as me, go as far as write the issue. A year ago it was just easier for me to hit the edit button. Now 10 months later I rather would use |
|
@damianopetrungaro I subsribed to this PR a long time ago, hoping it would pass as I agree the wording could be simplified. I see you want Issues before PRs. Perhaps you then want to update contributing? |
|
@damianopetrungaro oh, I see "Allow edits by maintainers" was missing, but now I"ve set it, so feel free to reopen, edit and rephrase as suitable and merge it. We may always revert if everything goes wrong. ) |
I couldn"t read the specification right and had to spent some time in fixing non-existing problem. :D
So I decided to rewrite the summary in Simple English so that next time I won"t have this problem (hopefully).