Conversation
|
@bcoe Hello. Can you please review this PR? |
|
Hello @shiraz thanks for the PR. I'm a bit mixed on the semantics though. On one hand, I think you should be able to use whatever prefix you'd like and works well for your team (this is meant to be a loose spec!). However, to me it seems like an experiment can be attached to any type of prefix. You could have an experimental refactor, where you're trying out a new framework; you could have an experimental feature, where you're adding a dialog to your application that works differently than others, etc., etc. I wonder if we could suggest a semantic for indicating that these are experimental in the commit message, without the Of the top of my head, We could document this suggestion of labeling experiments like this. |
Add
experimentCommit TypeProblem
Developers frequently create POCs and experimental features deployed to preview environments (Vercel Preview, Netlify Deploy Previews, etc.) for stakeholder testing. These commits may never be merged to master or released to production, but are currently labeled with
feat:orchore:, which can be misleading.Solution
Add
experiment:as a recommended commit type to clearly distinguish experimental work, POCs, and testing implementations from production-ready features.Use Cases
Benefits
Example
experiment: try new caching strategy for API responsesexperiment(ui): test new dashboard layout for stakeholder reviewNotes
This is my first contribution to this repository. Happy to make any adjustments as needed!