[ilikepi]

> I've seen codebases that enforce these commit prefixes such as "chore", "feat", "bugfix" etc. Is there any real value to that?

It's a choice some teams make, presumably because _they_ see value in it (or at least think they will). The team I'm on has particular practices which I'm sure would not work on other teams, and might cause you to look at them with the same incredulity, but they work for us.

For what it's worth, the prefixes you use as examples do arise from a convention with an actual spec:

https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

[jval43]

Just because someone put up a fancy website and named it "conventional" doesn't mean it's a convention or that it's a good idea.

The main reason this exists is because Angular was doing it to generate their changelogs from it. Which makes sense, but outside of that context it doesn't feel fully baked.

I usually see junior devs make such commits, but at the same time they leave the actual commit message body completely empty and don't even include a reference to the ticket they're working on.