Replace 'feat:' with 'new:'

[asashnov]

For me, it takes time to understand what 'feat:' stands for.

'new:' (this commit is adding a new feature) for me is more understandable.

[majew7]

This is interesting to consider introducing a type named new:.

I do agree that feat: is a a less readable abbreviation of feature:. Though I do appreciate it's 4 characters like many of the others types.

Q) If a type new: were added, how would you, and other developers, quickly distinguish between a

• Feature addition?
• Feature removal?
• A new documentation paragraph?
• A new unit test?

[asashnov]

new: - a new feature drop: - my proposal for feature removal docs: - any (add/remove) documentation change test: - any (add/remove) unit test change

Documentation and tests don't need to distinguish add/remove because they follow features usually.

[bcoe]

Conventional Commits purposely leaves the specification open to folks adding new types:

types other than fix: and feat: are allowed, for example @commitlint/config-conventional (based on the the Angular convention) recommends build:, chore:, ci:, docs:, style:, refactor:, perf:, test:, and others.

Because Conventional Commits is based on the Angular conventions originally, which use feat: to indicate new features added, and because there's already a lot of tooling int he ecosystem, I'm not supportive of changing feat to new -- I think it would create more confusion ultimately, by virtue of this being a major breaking change to the spec.

---

I agree, hindsight 20/20, feature would probably be a better choice than feat for an international audience. Rather than switching feat to new, as the recommendation, I'd rather explicitly state that feature should be treated as an alias of feat -- this feels like it would be a less disruptive change, and would perhaps translate better?

thoughts, comments?

[majew7]

Thanks for this response.

Yes feature as an alias of feat could be good, especially for an international audience. And it's shorter than the commonly used type refactor--which I say because I value conciseness too.

[pdurbin]

I agree, hindsight 20/20, feature would probably be a better choice than feat for an international audience. Rather than switching feat to new, as the recommendation, I'd rather explicitly state that feature should be treated as an alias of feat

I'm new to Conventional Commits, and while I like the idea overall, as even as a native English speaker I'm turned off by "feat". I'd be happy to type three more characters to get "feature" and it looks like @bcoe already created a dedicated "feature as an alias to feat" issue here:

• #200

I'd also be happy with a different word but nothing is coming immediately to mind and I agree that "new" is a bit ambiguous.