Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe
Not really.
Describe the solution you'd like
Today, we get this:
refactor: 💄 Refactoring something
But I personally want to be able to get this:
2.0.1.3 refactor: 💄 Refactoring something
Or better yet:
[2.0.1.3] [REFACTOR]: 💄 Refactoring something
Which should simply get the version of the project from wherever in the source code. Say for a Node app, it'd come from package.json.
You can also have an option for the user to specify the version, which in my opinion would be better.
This is just something that I've found being used in many places and started adding to my commit messages.
I am aware that I could just use branches for these, but where I work at we tend to use branches for separate features rather than whole versions. Say we're working on 2.2 of a project but there are eleven new features, and I need to write a quick update to fix some minor bugs so I end up creating 2.2.1, but then I need to add a hotfix which is then 2.2.1.1. The branch cascading would be insane, no? I'd rather be able to just continue to use my branches for feature-specific separation and use the commit message to show in which version I am. Some people think different and that's okay.
As is with some other options, this can be disabled by default if this runs away from normal conventions, but to have the opportunity to have it rather than not have it at all is always going to be better imo.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe
Not really.
Describe the solution you'd like
Today, we get this:
refactor: 💄 Refactoring somethingBut I personally want to be able to get this:
2.0.1.3 refactor: 💄 Refactoring somethingOr better yet:
[2.0.1.3] [REFACTOR]: 💄 Refactoring somethingWhich should simply get the version of the project from wherever in the source code. Say for a Node app, it'd come from package.json.
You can also have an option for the user to specify the version, which in my opinion would be better.
This is just something that I've found being used in many places and started adding to my commit messages.
I am aware that I could just use branches for these, but where I work at we tend to use branches for separate features rather than whole versions. Say we're working on 2.2 of a project but there are eleven new features, and I need to write a quick update to fix some minor bugs so I end up creating 2.2.1, but then I need to add a hotfix which is then 2.2.1.1. The branch cascading would be insane, no? I'd rather be able to just continue to use my branches for feature-specific separation and use the commit message to show in which version I am. Some people think different and that's okay.
As is with some other options, this can be disabled by default if this runs away from normal conventions, but to have the opportunity to have it rather than not have it at all is always going to be better imo.