search

iusztinpaul / hands-on-llms

🦖 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 about 𝗟𝗟𝗠𝘀, 𝗟𝗟𝗠𝗢𝗽𝘀, and 𝘃𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗕𝘀 for free by designing, training, and deploying a real-time financial advisor LLM system ~ 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘥𝘦 + 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 & 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴
MIT License
3k stars 462 forks source link

Streaming Pipeline: Alpaca, Bytewax, Qdrant #2

Closed iusztinpaul closed 1 year ago

clamytoe commented 1 year ago

I like how you add feat, docs, and refactor to your commit messages. Makes it super easy to know what each commit has changed/added. Is this how you work or is this something you do with a rebase? Are there any other categories that you commonly use?

iusztinpaul commented 1 year ago

I like how you add feat, docs, and refactor to your commit messages. It makes it super easy to know what each commit has changed/added. Is this how you work or is this something you do with a rebase? Are there any other categories that you commonly use?

Thank you! I am using the standard "Conventional Commits" which is used by many tools to automatically version your repository based on different tags ("feat", "refactor", "docs", etc.).

Joywalker commented 1 year ago

I like how you add feat, docs, and refactor to your commit messages. Makes it super easy to know what each commit has changed/added. Is this how you work or is this something you do with a rebase? Are there any other categories that you commonly use?

Hi Martin, If you have the ability to choose which commit nomenclature to use, i vouch for this one too. It is used throughout many projects because, aside of what Paul already mentioned, it also ensures traceability and easier history walkthrough. Using this, you could also trace if a feature needs to be split into 2 separate pathways of development, as you can track the number of fix or refactor tags used.

If you enjoy more visual commits, you could take a look into gitmoji (it is a power-up over convetional git). https://gitmoji.dev/

Cheers and happy coding!