Gitmoji: 🩹 simple_fix: a simple fix for a non-critical issue.

[alexfernandez]

Hello @carloscuesta :nerd_face:!

• Emoji: :adhesive_bandage:
• Code: :adhesive_bandage:
• Proposed name: :simple_fix:
• Description: This emoji would be perfect for simple fixes for non-critical issues.
  I often use :bug: or :ambulance: , but many fixes are both unimportant and cannot be directly attributed to a bug.
  E.g.: a database format change, better logging... One-liner fixes which are not important or critical need an emoji too.

In short, just like a band-aid: a simple fix for a non-critical issue.

[carloscuesta]

Hello @alexfernandez thanks for opening an issue!

I really like the 🩹 emoji itself. My only concern is about the description of it, the "non-critical" fix term maybe is a little bit too generic?

The examples you provided I think are covered with another Gitmojis such as:

• Logging -> :loud_sound: and :mute:
• Bugs -> :bug: and :ambulance:
• Database -> :card_file_box:

When adding a Gitmoji we try to find something that has a clear definition and use case. What do you think @vhoyer @johannchopin about this?

[alexfernandez]

True! My examples were not clear enough. A better definition is: "Simple fix", and perhaps better use cases would be:

• a one-liner fix for an obscure corner case in the database: if (!value) type = 3,
• a small adaptation to a new version of a protocol: if (version === 3) setType('newVersion'),
• a check to improve error reporting (specific error instead of TypeError): if (!value) throw new Error('Invalid value').

All of these cases are not urgent (no :ambulance:), they are not really bugs (no :bug:), and even when they are log related (:loud_sound:) or database related (:card_file_box:) they are more specifically fixes so they can be combined (:adhesive_bandage: :card_file_box: or :adhesive_bandage: :loud_sound:).

What do you think?

[vhoyer]

We don't like to encourage people to combine emojis, the idea is to keep it simple (besides, having some commits with more than one emoji would ruin the messages alignment haha)

[alexfernandez]

Agreed. Me, I would prefer using just :adhesive_bandage: :simple_fix: since it is often more interesting to know about the magnitude and scope of a change (simple fix) than about its nature (database, logs, whatever).

[alexfernandez]

Hi, I improved the title and the description. Is there anything else I can do to move this issue forward? Thanks!

[carloscuesta]

Let's open a vote to decide if we want to add this to the Gitmoji considering that this might be already covered by :bug:

• 👍🏼 - Yes
• 👎🏼 - No

[carloscuesta]

The vote will be opened for 1 week until Monday 09/11/2020 😊

[carloscuesta]

So seems that 👍🏼 adding this to the spec wins:

Feel free to make the PR @alexfernandez

[alexfernandez]

I am not so sure, when two of the main maintainers are against it. I would first like to persuade you that :adhesive_bandage: is not covered by :bug: , not anymore than :ambulance: is.

Sometimes you want to emphasize what you are doing, as with :zap: (improve performance) or with :memo: (improve docs). But at other times you may want to emphasize how you are doing it: with a critical hotfix :ambulance: or maybe breaking compatibility :boom: . Note that a new feature :sparkles: may or may not break compatibility :boom: , so we would need either to combine gitmojis (something you have specifically vetoed) or choose which aspect we want to emphasize. When we use :ambulance: we are not specifying if we are doing the critical hotfix with database code :card_file_box: , with a bug fix :bug: or maybe updating an asset :bento: .

In this line, sometimes we want to emphasize that a commit or a PR is just a simple fix, probably one or two lines. It does not matter if it's a change in documentation, a fix to a bug or a database-related change.

Finally, I submit the following case:

A new version of the protocol we use is released. Since the changes do not affect us, we only need to vet it in our code before it is accepted. We release a one-liner:

- accepts: [1, 2, 3]
+ accepts: [1, 2, 3, 4]

This is clearly a simple fix, not a bug, I don't think it's covered by any other gitmoji, and it is important to mark it as such in the git log so we can discard it when looking for a more substantial change (or consider it if need be).

Let me know if this makes my case clearer. Thanks!

[vhoyer]

Hey, @alexfernandez, no need to worry. I did understand the use case behind the new emoji, I just tend to vote against new emojis, especially those cases where I never had a doubt about which emoji to use, in this last one-liner case, I personally would use a :sparkles: (new feature), but that's just me.

I do so because I'm worried that with an increasing number of emojis will raise the entry barrier to new users of gitmoji :passport_control:. But the voting was fair and if people want it, let people have it :heart:, so I make carlos' words mine. Thank you a lot for your work and effort, personally I really appreciate haha :smile:

[carloscuesta]

The explanation you provided is much clearer! Thanks for that @alexfernandez let's see if @johannchopin wants to add something 😊

[johannchopin]

Hey @alexfernandez 👋 I really appreciate the time you invest on this project and the new ideas that you bring. People have voted so let's add it 👍 IMHO I don't see yet how I can use it but probably I will find out in my future projects 😉

[carloscuesta]

I think you can go ahead then @alexfernandez

[alexfernandez]

OK, will do! :+1: Thanks :pray:

[alexfernandez]

Submitted https://github.com/carloscuesta/gitmoji/pull/617.