Do you often find yourself using “New feature”, “More” or similar short, useless and generic strings as your git commit messages? I know I did. Until I learned about semantic commit messages, that is. What are they and how can they exponentially improve your commit history and make it actually useful? I’m discussing it in this post.
Semantic commit messages are intended to bring some structure and order to your git history—or whatever VCS you happen to use. Essentially, they define a format that all your commit messages should be in, so that they can be easily parsable and processed automatically. I think they bring very many benefits to your regular developer’s workflow:
- You will actually need think about what is in your commit.
- Your commits will be unitary—each covering a single topic (bug fix, feature, etc.).
- Your git history will be better structured and you don’t need to read too hard to find stuff.
- You can use your git history for neat things, like auto-generating change logs.
- Once you have used it for a couple of weeks, you’ll find yourself doing it effortlessly almost without thinking!
So, the commit format you need to use is this:
The type can typically be one of:
feat– new feature or improvement.
fix– bug fix, should possibly reference the issue id in footer or body.
docs– changes to the documentation (
style– changes that don’t affect functionality or such as cosmetic changes or formatting.
refactor– code refactoring which does not modify functionality or fix a bug, class changes, name changes, moves, etc.
perf– changes that improve or address performance issues.
build– changes to the build and continuous integration systems, or to run scripts and installer files.
none– minor changes that do not fit in any other category, or partial, non-finished commits.
The description is a summary written in present tense. This is important to keep a consistent format and avoid mixing tenses, which looks and feels very bad and sloppy once you read all commit messages one after the other. “
refactor: move render system to render package” is a correct description, while “
refactor: render system moved to render package” is not. You’ll thank me later.
In the body you can develop the topic to your heart’s content, if you want.
The footer is usually reserved for annotations and references such as the issue number it fixes or the new feature it references.
For example, this would be a valid commit message:
fix: super annoying bug
Fix the stars getting obliterated when the user clicks on 'help'
I’m using this format in pretty much all my repositories and the histories are understandable, at least to a degree, even by people that do not know anything about the projects. See the Gaia Sky repository history, my dotfiles or even the repository for this very site.
I find myself using the types
build a lot.