Add "improvement" type as suggested by the spec

[binarylogic]

From the spec:

We also recommend improvement for commits that improve a current implementation without adding a new feature or fixing a bug.

[AndersDJohnson]

Thanks! I don't like how lengthy this type is, but it is effective spec now, so we should include it.

[binarylogic]

Thanks! Appreciate the quick turn around.

Think we can get a version bump? We'd like to include these changes in the Github semantic pull request bot:

https://github.com/probot/semantic-pull-requests

[AndersDJohnson]

@binarylogic I've now published to npm as 2.3.0. Thanks!

[matthewfeickert]

@AndersDJohnson Would you also be willing to cut a GitHub v2.3.0 release? Not sure, but that might affect the probot/semantic-pull-requests issue I filed related to commitizen/conventional-commit-types type releases.

[AndersDJohnson]

@matthewfeickert Sure, I just pushed the tag for v2.3.0 and also created GitHub release (https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/releases/tag/v2.3.0).

Note that historically we've pushed tags here but not necessarily created GitHub releases out of them. Will that be a problem for your tooling?

[matthewfeickert]

@matthewfeickert Sure, I just pushed the tag for v2.3.0 and also created GitHub release (https://github.com/commitizen/conventional-commit-types/releases/tag/v2.3.0).

Thanks very much! I appreciate you being so responsive.

Note that historically we've pushed tags here but not necessarily created GitHub releases out of them. Will that be a problem for your tooling?

Good question. I'm not actually sure, as I just gave a cursory glance and noticed that this PR was quite recent when I was reporting my issue to the probot/semantic-pull-requests team, so I thought I'd ask just to be safe and to make things easier to compare as they cite commitizen/conventional-commit-types v2.2.0 on GitHub in their README. At the risk of being annoying I'll tag @zeke here as they seem to be the one who has committed to probot/semantic-pull-requests the most in 2019.

Though at this point as you've been so helpful I think that any discussion on this PR can stop and that any follow up can just be on the Issue I made. Thanks again! :)

[AndersDJohnson]

@binarylogic @matthewfeickert It looks like they removed improvement as recommended. It was in their 1.0.0-beta.4 release, but removed in 1.0.0.

I'm proposing we consider removing it in #16, so I would appreciate if you could share thoughts there.

[binarylogic]

👍 Go for it. I don't have strong opinions. We're able to customize our PR check to allow for custom types.

[matthewfeickert]

@AndersDJohnson Thanks very much for the heads up. This all sounds fine to me, so I'll adjust things on the pyhf side accordingly.