> I find conventional commits helpful when deciding what makes an atomic change.
I already know if I’m doing a fix, a refactor, a “chore” etc. Conventional commits just happen to be the ugliest way you can express those “types” in what looks like English.
Yeah, well, that's just, like... your opinion, man.
But I've worked with many, many developers who don't strictly separate commits by type this way. I myself am tempted to do a fix in the same commit as a refactor many times. Conventional commits simply suggest, well, a convention for how to make this separation cleaner and more explicit, so that the intent can be communicated better within a team. I've found this helpful as a guide for making atomic changes. Whether or not you write your commit messages in a certain way is beside the point. But let me know if you come up with a prettier way to communicate this in a team.
I already know if I’m doing a fix, a refactor, a “chore” etc. Conventional commits just happen to be the ugliest way you can express those “types” in what looks like English.