Closed jkeifer closed 1 month ago
how about using conventional commits with commitizen for message linting (as a pre-commit hook), CHANGELOG automation and version bumping?
it's a bit awkward at first sometimes, but in 90% of commits it's using an feat:
or fix:
prefix only.
@c-wygoda I believe that an effective CHANGELOG requires some level of curation to be useful--commit messages are not always sufficient documentation. I also think right now simpler is better, so I'd rather just get a workflow in that can build and publish this package to pypi and if we want to do something more later we can always bring up this idea again in the future. Sound okay?
well, agree with moving forward. I would say than an CHANGELOG curation is a sign of missing automation at best, inefficient commit messages at worst.
We need to have a github workflow to build this package and push it to pypi. It should be triggered by the publishing of a new github release. The release process should be documented in
RELEASE.md
. That process is likely just compiling the release notes inCHANGELOG.md
, finding the next appropriate tag version, then drafting and publishing the release with the relevant notes and correct tag version.