Automating documentation from Git history
Automate creation of documentation from Git history
The input determines the output
Git history is only a usable documentation source if commits are structured. Conventional Commits — feat:, fix:, chore:, BREAKING CHANGE: — make history machine-readable, which is what allows a changelog to be grouped by kind and a version to be derived automatically.
| Prefix | Implies |
|---|---|
fix: | Patch release |
feat: | Minor release |
BREAKING CHANGE: | Major release |
That mapping is why the convention pays: SemVer stops being a judgement call at release time and becomes a consequence of what was committed.
Enforcing it
A convention nobody enforces decays within weeks. Validate commit messages in the pull request — a build validation step or a policy check — so the shape is guaranteed rather than hoped for.
What automation cannot do
It cannot invent the why. A generated changelog says what changed; the reasoning belongs in the work item or an architecture decision record. Automating history is a way of producing an accurate list cheaply, not a substitute for explanation.
Primary sources