@snoack reviewed 1 file and all commit messages, and made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on pkaminski).

.github/workflows/publish.yaml line 184 at r1 (raw file):

          const name = pkg.name;
          const version = pkg.version;
          fs.appendFileSync(process.env.GITHUB_OUTPUT, `package_name=${name}\n`);

Does the package name even matter? In practice it's just the name of the repo, and therefore redundant in the commit message, or am I missing something?

@pkaminski made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on snoack).

.github/workflows/publish.yaml line 184 at r1 (raw file):

Doesn't terribly matter, but Codex decided to give the tags' messages the full name@version treatment (see next to last line), and given that it's just a couple extra lines here I find it hard to get upset about it.

@snoack made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on pkaminski).

.github/workflows/publish.yaml line 184 at r1 (raw file):

I'm more concerned about the verbosity of the commit messages than about the workflow complexity. Mentioning the name of the project in commit messages seems quite redundant to me. Anyway, if you disagree, just mark this discussion as resolved, and merge.

@pkaminski made 1 comment and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on pkaminski).

.github/workflows/publish.yaml line 184 at r1 (raw file):

These are annotated tags and IIUC only the tag name (just the package version) shows in all contexts unless you explicitly do git show 1.2.3, which shows the full details including the message. Thus the length of the message should be pretty much irrelevant unless I'm missing something.