Repository navigation
breaking change: a repository declares who its history is written for - #7
Merged
Merged
Conversation
§5 mandated Conventional Commits and Keep a Changelog. Neither Codechu tool follows either: two of the last sixty commits in one of them match the conventional form, and its changelog has no Added/Fixed groupings. That is not drift. Those repositories write a commit subject as a sentence and a body that names the incident the change answers, and their changelog opens by saying every entry names the incident that caused it — a rule `fix: correct banner width` cannot carry. A mandate no repository follows is the failure this document keeps naming: a rule that is read and skipped. So §5.0 states the real choice — a convention serves either a tool deriving things from the history or a reader who has to understand it — makes each an explicit option with what it costs, and requires the repository to declare which in CONTRIBUTING. Incident prose is spelled out as a convention with its own obligations, not as an absence of one; a repo on it still tags, still writes a changelog entry per release, still marks breaking changes. The second reader is named too, because it is no longer only a person: agents read history to decide what to do, and they sit on the understanding side of the split. Also mirrors §5.1 into the Turkish file, which it never reached.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the Codechu standards documentation to explicitly separate commit-history conventions that are “tool-derived” (Conventional Commits + Keep a Changelog) from “reader/agent-understandable” incident prose, requiring each repository to declare its choice. Also mirrors the release-cutting guidance (§5.1) into the Turkish standards document.
Changes:
- Replaces the single mandated commit format with a per-repository choice declared in
CONTRIBUTING.md(per §5.0). - Adds a new §5.0 section explaining the “derive vs understand” split and defining “incident prose” obligations.
- Mirrors §5.1 (“Cutting a release”) into
STANDARDS.tr.md.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| STANDARDS.md | Introduces §5.0 (history audience + conventions) and updates the versioning/commits rule table accordingly. |
| STANDARDS.tr.md | Turkish mirror of §5.0 and §5.1 plus updated rule table to match the new commit-format policy. |
Suppressed comments (2)
STANDARDS.md:150
- This section points readers to
CONTRIBUTING.md, but that file does not exist anywhere in this repository. Consider rephrasing to point to a generic contribution guide (or addCONTRIBUTING.mdin this PR) so the instruction can be followed.
once. Pick one deliberately, per repository, and say which in
`CONTRIBUTING.md`. Mixing them inside one repository gives neither.
STANDARDS.tr.md:153
- Bu paragraf
CONTRIBUTING.md'ye yönlendiriyor ama bu repoda böyle bir dosya (veya CONTRIBUTING* adlı bir dosya) yok. Kuralın uygulanabilir olması için ya dosyayı ekleyin ya da metni genel bir "katkı rehberi"ne referans verecek şekilde düzeltin.
edilemez. Depo başına bilinçli seç ve hangisi olduğunu `CONTRIBUTING.md`'de
söyle. Aynı depo içinde karıştırmak ikisini de vermez.
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
| |---|---| | ||
| | Version scheme | [SemVer 2.0](https://semver.org/) | | ||
| | Commit format | [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/) | | ||
| | Commit format | one of the two in §5.0, declared in `CONTRIBUTING.md` | |
| |---|---| | ||
| | Version şeması | [SemVer 2.0](https://semver.org/) | | ||
| | Commit formatı | [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/) | | ||
| | Commit formatı | §5.0'daki ikiden biri, `CONTRIBUTING.md`'de beyan edilir | |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
§5 mandated Conventional Commits and Keep a Changelog. Neither Codechu tool follows either — two of the last sixty commits in one of them match the conventional form, and its changelog has no
### Added/### Fixedgroupings. A mandate no repository follows is the failure this document keeps naming: a rule that is read and skipped.It is also not drift. Those repositories write the subject as a sentence and the body as the incident the change answers; their changelog opens by saying every entry names the incident that caused it.
fix: correct banner widthcannot carry that.§5.0 states the real split — a convention serves either a tool that derives things from the history or a reader who has to understand it — gives each an explicit row with what it costs, and requires the repository to declare its choice in
CONTRIBUTING.md. Mixing them inside one repository gives neither. Incident prose is written out as a convention with obligations of its own, not as an absence of one: a repo on it still tagsvX.Y.Z, still writes a changelog entry per release, still marks breaking changes — it just does not expect a tool to infer them.The second reader is named, because it is no longer only a person: agents read history to decide what to do next, and they are on the understanding side of the split.
Also mirrors §5.1 ("Cutting a release", merged in #6) into
STANDARDS.tr.md, which it never reached.