As an open-source maintainer, squash feature branches onto `master` and write
a standardized commit message while doing so.
The commit message should be structured as follows:
---
```
<type>[optional scope]: <description>
[optional body]
[optional footer]
```
---
<br/>
The commit contains the following structural elements, to communicate intent to the
consumers of your library:
1.**fix:** a commit of the _type_`fix` patches a bug in your codebase (this correlates with [`PATCH`](http://semver.org/#summary) in semantic versioning).
1.**BREAKING CHANGE:** a commit that has the text `BREAKING CHANGE:` at the beginning of its optional body or footer section introduces a breaking API change (correlating with [`MAJOR`](http://semver.org/#summary) in semantic versioning). A breaking change can be
Commit _types_ other than `fix:` and `feat:` are allowed, for example [the Angular convention](https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/22b96b9/CONTRIBUTING.md#-commit-message-guidelines) recommends `docs:`, `style:`, `refactor:`, `perf:`, `test:`, `chore:`, but these tags are
The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
1. Breaking changes MUST be indicated at the very beginning of the footer or body section of a commit. A breaking change MUST consist of the uppercase text `BREAKING CHANGE`, followed by a colon and a space.
1. A description MUST be provided after the `BREAKING CHANGE: `, describing what
* Automatically determining a semantic version bump (based on the types of commits landed).
* Communicating the nature of changes to teammates, the public, and other stakeholders.
* Triggering build and publish processes.
* Making it easier for people to contribute to your projects, by allowing them to explore
a more structured commit history.
## FAQ
### How should I deal with commit messages in the initial development phase?
We recommend that you proceed as if you've an already released product. Typically *somebody*, even if its your fellow software developers, is using your software. They'll want to know what's fixed, what breaks etc.
### What do I do if the commit conforms to more than one of the commit types?
Go back and make multiple commits whenever possible. Part of the benefit of Conventional Commits is its ability to drive us to make more organized commits and PRs.
### Doesn’t this discourage rapid development and fast iteration?
It discourages moving fast in a disorganized way. It helps you be able to move fast long term across multiple projects with varied contributors.
### Might Conventional Commits lead developers to limit the type of commits they make because they'll be thinking in the types provided?
Conventional Commits encourages us to make more of certain types of commits such as fixes. Other than that, the flexibility of Conventional Commits allows your team to come up with their own types and change those types over time.
### How does this relate to SemVer?
`fix` type commits should be translated to `PATCH` releases. `feat` type commits should be translated to `MINOR` releases. Commits with `BREAKING CHANGE` in the commits, regardless of type, should be translated to `MAJOR` releases.
### How should I version my extensions to the Conventional Commits Specification, e.g. `@jameswomack/conventional-commit-spec`?
We recommend using SemVer to release your own extensions to this specification (and
encourage you to make these extensions!)
### What do I do if I accidentally use the wrong commit type?
#### When you used a type that's of the spec but not the correct type, e.g. `fix` instead of `feat`
Prior to merging or releasing the mistake, we recommend using `git rebase -i` to edit the commit history. After release, the cleanup will be different according to what tools and processes you use.
#### When you used a type *not* of the spec, e.g. `feet` instead of `feat`
In a worst case scenario, it's not the end of the world if a commit lands that does not meet the conventional commit specification. It simply means that commit will be missed by tools that are based on the spec.
### Do all my contributors need to use the conventional commit specification?
No! If you use a squash based workflow on Git lead maintainers can cleanup the commit messages as they're merged—adding no workload to casual committers. A common workflow for this is to have your git system automatically squash commits from a pull request and present a form for the lead maintainer to enter the proper git commit message for the merge.
## About
The Conventional Commit specification is inspired by, and based heavily on, the [Angular Commit Guidelines](https://github.com/angular/angular.js/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit).
The first draft of this specification has been written in collaboration with some of the
folks contributing to:
* [conventional-changelog](https://github.com/conventional-changelog/conventional-changelog): a
set of tools for parsing conventional commit messages from git histories.
* [unleash](https://github.com/netflix/unleash): a tool for automating the
software release and publishing lifecycle.
* [lerna](https://github.com/lerna/lerna): a tool for managing monorepos, which grew out
of the Babel project.
## Projects Using Conventional Commits
* [yargs](https://github.com/yargs/yargs): everyone's favorite pirate themed command line argument parser.
* [istanbuljs](https://github.com/istanbuljs/istanbuljs): a collection of open-source tools
and libraries for adding test coverage to your JavaScript tests.
* [standard-version](https://github.com/conventional-changelog/standard-version): Automatic versioning and CHANGELOG management, using GitHub's new squash button and the recommended Conventional Commits workflow.
