Hello,
I am not sure: because et individual commit the changelog element can stay the same accross several commits, but the actual message differs:
feature(ecc) moving attributes to dedicated data structure
feature(ecc) adjusting views in portlet for new field labels
feature(ecc) adding moderator workflow for changes on the ecc fields.
would that be an example of a situation which looked akward to you?
Kind regards, Michael
From: sw360-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sw360-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Borodin, Alex (CT DD DS EVO O APS PI 1)
Sent: Freitag, 9. Dezember 2016 11:36
To: sw360-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [sw360-dev] conventional changelog
Hi,
This seems to necessitate one commit per feature/fix/etc, which is not always desireable. Especially for larger features, where one may want to
split them further and work in smaller incremental commits.
As we work with Github in practice, it looks like our logical unit of work is not a commit, but a pull request. I would say such convention would
very much make sense to implement for PR descriptions. I just don’t know if there’s a way to generate a changelog from those.
Alex
Hi,
how about improving the commit style of messages using conventional changelog?
fix(licenseinfo) correcting bug with GPL-2.0 missing
feat(portlets) improving attachment list with datatable
docs(docker) adding information to install compose separatedly
style(vulnerabilities) changing indendation
refactor(scheduling) moving out specific scheduling functionality
test(projects) adding test for access by moderators
Then, if we have sufficient coverage, we could go over and auto generate the release notes …