-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 199
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Commit assigned to tag section instead of Unreleased section when merging a feature branch #188
Comments
Thanks for opening your first issue at git-cliff! Be sure to follow the issue template! ⛰️ |
Same case — post-release commits on feature branches are attributed to the release (charlesrocket/dorst@dc9570c) |
Any news on this issue? I am in the same situation too. Below I have reported a series of steps to reconstruct the problem. I hope they can be helpful.
After performing these operations, I run the following command, with version 1.2.0 of git-cliff (with macos v.13.4.1):
I get the following result:
If I run the command specifying a tag, like below
I get the following result:
In any case, the two features are grouped within the same section, unreleased or 1.0.0. Instead, using a different CHANGELOG generator, such as
Features are grouped in tag sections correctly, as I expect. |
#415 addresses this. |
Can we get a release for this? This has just caused a big confusion in my company ^^ |
Sure, I'm preparing for a new release soon! |
Thank you! Really awesome work ⭐ |
Describe the bug
A commit made in a separate branch on a date previous to the release tag is included in the tagged section instead of the Unreleased section. The merge happens after the initial tag of the release and the commit still ends up in the released section with the latest tag, instead of the Unreleased section.
To reproduce
feature/my-feature
commitxyz
release/14.0
commitabc
tagged14.0.0
feature/my-feature
intorelease/14.0
Expected behavior
Unreleased
xyz
14.0.0
abc
Observed behavior
14.0.0
abc
xyz
Additional context
Thank you in advance for the support, I will remain available for any other clarification or detail.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: