cocogitto VS git-cliff

I’ve found it’s too error prone to rely on developers remembering to use conventional commits. But when you use something like cocogitto [0], it makes writing compliant commit messages the path of least resistance. I’ve always liked the idea of conventional commits, but it never felt valuable in practice until I discovered the tooling to make it easy.

[0] https://github.com/cocogitto/cocogitto

All tools have already been written, so cocogitto exists for this.

https://github.com/cocogitto/cocogitto https://docs.cocogitto.io/

git-cliff is a terminal tool that can generate changelog from the Git history by using conventional commits, as well as by using regex-powered parsers and you can even change the changelog template itself by using a configuration file. This tool is a great example of text parsing on the terminal and also uses clap_mangen which generates man pages. Useful for anyone who is serious about looking into making a production-ready terminal tool!

Solutions exist for this. Our company does this with git-cliff. Using conventional commits, any commit labeled with the subject "www" will appear in our public changelog.

This was primarily aimed to work with git-cliff to generate changelogs for GitHub releases, since tagging contributors would include them as contributors for the release, while also ensuring structured changelogs thanks to git-cliff. As of now, it requires a few extra steps to get it working with git-cliff, but the integration should be much better once the PR for post-processors is merged.

It's the first time I see someone combining gitmoji with conventional commits (I use the later now for all my project, to generate my changelogs automatically with with git-cliff.)