gitmoji VS standard-version

My commit messages are pretty good though. I put some effort/thought into them not just for the repo/git purposes, but it also helps me mentally keep track of what I have done / have to do just in the general carry-on coding. I even prefix messages with an emoji, similar to the guidelines on https://gitmoji.dev/

You may also turn on GitMoji convention if you prefer your messages baked with emojis 🤠

I use Gitmoji:

https://github.com/carloscuesta/gitmoji

OpenCommit leverages the conventional commits convention, ensuring your commit messages are both concise and informative. Want a little fun in your commits? Enable the GitMoji setting!

The library uses conventional commits convention which makes commits concise and comprehensive. You can also turn on GitMoji setting if you like.

At a previous job we used https://gitmoji.dev, which scrumoji is based on. At some point I started using the ladybug emoji for bugs because it's actually a bug while my colleagues kept using the caterpillar emoji because they preferred caterpillars. I thought it was a nice way to bring some individuality into our commit messages!

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.)

It still happens today: https://github.com/carloscuesta/gitmoji

We can use standard-version tool to generate a changelog, bump the version of app and create a new tag automatically.

There are many great tools to help with automation here, some of them are action-semantic-pull-request to enforce conventional commits and standard version to bump the version and create a changelog according to the conventional commits.

I tried gitmoji and followed Make everyone in your project write beautiful commit messages using commitlint and commitizen by @sohandutta, but end up using the setting in this article because it's not compatible to changelog generation of standard-version (Ref: Issue #859)

As a bonus point, the issues you create in your repository can also serve as part of the documentation. You can outline new features there and you will even be able to generate changelogs from the merged pull requests (like I do using conventional-changelog/standard-version).

There’s also a husky precommit hook with ESlint and Prettier fixing and formatting changed code on every commit with lint-staged which makes sure malformed code doesn't even make it to the Pull Request. Combined with standard-version and strict commit messages it makes releasing and changelog generation a breeze. For a contributor the workflow is as smooth as:

But you can also automate even more, if, for example, you write according to Conventional Commits, you can also automate the creation of tags using the standard-version library.

# Changelog All notable changes to this project will be documented in this file. See \[standard-version\](https://github.com/conventional-changelog/standard-version) for commit guidelines. ## 1.1.0 (2021-07-12) ### Features * **new-feature:** add a new-feature to our project 11c0322

Standard Version

So this is like standard-version with less features?

Probably the most common option, or at least most readily available, is to pull your commit messages since the last release and package it all up. You have tools and formats such as conventional commits combined with standard version can auto-generate changelogs for you. NodeJS's changelog maker does the same thing in one package. GoReleaser has a built-in release notes tool that acts very similarly.