We enforce conventional commits on some of our repos that rely on svu to give us automatic releases. We do this in the docs, pr template, pre-commit and at the action level.
"It values style over content and filters out contributors who care more about the product they’re getting and the code more than how your CI/CD is supposed to be managed."
It values automation and standards at the expense of autonomy. Its a tradeoff.
"If you still prefer it you can squeeze a PR commits into a single one that follows your preferred style, but please do not ask contributors to learn unuseful and unportable knowledge."
I can see how it could turn people away in the opensource sense, yet another thing to do for a PR to be accepted. But id argue being familiar with commit style requirements for a repo or following a contribution guide is a portable skill.
"It values style over content and filters out contributors who care more about the product they’re getting and the code more than how your CI/CD is supposed to be managed."
It values automation and standards at the expense of autonomy. Its a tradeoff.
"If you still prefer it you can squeeze a PR commits into a single one that follows your preferred style, but please do not ask contributors to learn unuseful and unportable knowledge."
I can see how it could turn people away in the opensource sense, yet another thing to do for a PR to be accepted. But id argue being familiar with commit style requirements for a repo or following a contribution guide is a portable skill.