Does the allow list in package.json pin to the package version, or only to the package name?

The compromise is to defer to a standard formatting tool such as prettier or pip8.

As long as the file extension changes to align with the format, that sounds great. There are far too many abuses of .json that allow comments, trailing commas, etc.

Most of the folks I caught pushing "changes" as a commit message are now letting AI write their commit messages for them. It has been a massive improvement.

This is not without struggles. Many times the changelog updates are missed. You can try to catch this in code review, but that could also be missed. So you can try to automatically verify the changelog was updated, but you can't force that as a pass/fail check since not all changes require a user facing change. Or your project maintainers simply copy the commit message and paste it into the changelog, and at that point, why not just automate it with something like conventional commits?

Could/should the changelog be considered a first-class deliverable with care and attention provided? I think so, but I'm not in a position to exert direct control over that across dozens of repos and team members.

> Many times the changelog updates are missed.

In my experience, LLMs are great at reviewing changelogs for potential gaps from a user POV (and even creating draft changelogs wholesale, if you're backfilling) based on git history.

I like this idea, but could see it working better as a git trailer to avoid adding noise to git log

The article is wrong about reverts (in my opinion). If a breaking change is introduced, and then removed, the removal should also most likely be considered a breaking change (both the addition and removal are changing your API). So it is correct that a major version bump should occur when reverting. Once a package has been published, the ship has sailed.

The issue is that if there was no release in between, or only a beta or similar, you now have two breaking changes indicated by the commits, although in sum there is none since the last official release.

That's true, but depends on your workflow and release strategy.

If you are releasing upon every push to main/master (following what semantic release and conventional commits provides you in terms of automation), then it makes sense to perform major version bumps for the reverts.

If you have a manual release strategy, then it might not make sense to use these tools in the way they have been designed.

If you have actual dependents in a SemVer fashion, then this isn’t useful for those still on the prior version. What you’d rather do is decrement the major version again because it’s compatible with the prior version again. Those dependents who already upgraded to the interim version have to consider another breaking change regardless.

And if you don’t have these kinds of dependents, then the versioning scheme isn’t important anyway.

release-please[0] allows you to do a manual version override in a commit, which would allow you to decrement the major version upon reverting a breaking change

I think that could be simplified, so the tool can tell that a commit is reverting a breaking change and thus the version should be decremented, but at least there's an escape hatch.

[0]: https://github.com/googleapis/release-please

It isn't a standard, it is a convention. You can set a standard within your team to include the ticket id in the commit message.

"Backyard" is obviously not to be taken literally. Anywhere you put one of these things is going to have an impact on the region. But perhaps you can provide some examples of places that are not in anyone's backyard?

Corporate mandate to use windows. Crowdstrike scans make doing anything on the command line a non-starter. For example, adding mise to my powershell prompt adds multiple seconds! to each powershell command execution... it's just not even feasible at that point to work in Windows. WSL resolves these issues.