Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

docs(README): Removes refrences to Angular convention. #413

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 30, 2019
Merged

docs(README): Removes refrences to Angular convention. #413

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
5ecf8e9
docs(README): Removes refrences to Angular convention.
jbottigliero Jul 24, 2019
17dc37a
docs: reword the comparison to `semantic-release`
jbottigliero Jul 30, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ Tell your users that you adhere to the Conventional Commits specification:

`standard-version` is different because it handles the versioning, changelog generation, and git tagging for you **without** automatic pushing (to GitHub) or publishing (to an npm registry). Use of `standard-version` only affects your local git repo - it doesn't affect remote resources at all. After you run `standard-version`, you still have the ability to review things and correct mistakes if you want to.

They are both based on the same foundation of structured commit messages (using [Angular format](https://github.com/bcoe/conventional-changelog-standard/blob/master/convention.md)), but `standard-version` is a good choice for folks who are not yet comfortable letting publishes go out automatically. In this way, you can view `standard-version` as an incremental step to adopting `semantic-release`.
They are both based on the same foundation of structured commit messages, but `standard-version` is a good choice for folks who are not yet comfortable letting publishes go out automatically. In this way, you can view `standard-version` as an incremental step to adopting `semantic-release`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know that someone necessarily wants to move towards fully automated releases, as an example here's what we're doing currently at Google:

googleapis/release-please#211

We create candidate PRs which an engineer can eventually land, perhaps we could tweak this wording a bit talking about this as a spectrum of automation that someone might have:

  • manual work.
  • release PRs like release please.
  • continuous releases.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've reworded this a bit, let me know what you think!

Taking a step back, it looks like the comparison to semantic-release was added as part of the FAQ ~3 years ago... thinking about the expanded support for bumpFiles and movement toward the config-spec, I wonder if the README as a whole needs some finessing and if we could work toward dropping this section altogether. I do see value in having a section devoted to common implementations/patterns to help folks better understand how "we" fit into the ecosystem, but maybe we can do it without specific comparisons.


We think they are both fantastic tools, and we encourage folks to use `semantic-release` instead of `standard-version` if it makes sense for them.

Expand Down