I think commits should contain atomic-yet-meaningful changes and the commit message should describe this as well as possible.
It's worth rewriting the history to achieve this and squashing or splitting commits until this is the case. You shouldn't do this for the benefit of your users or a changelog, you should do this in order that it is easier to bisect the history or for other contributors to understand exactly the change a commit relates to. There is nothing worse than commits which combine a working bug fix with a half-written feature -- split them out!
Obviously, it's possible to inadvertently create a misleading history by re-arranging the order that work was done or getting rid of failed attempts at a solution, but generally the false reality is easier to understand and good understanding is key.
Yeah, we don’t do much but I started writing up a brief description with a link to the PR, hotfix, or commit, so we can easily find links to relevant changes if we need to. It’s not that difficult to write it up manually. Automating it is too prone to either errors or a less than helpful message.
It's worth rewriting the history to achieve this and squashing or splitting commits until this is the case. You shouldn't do this for the benefit of your users or a changelog, you should do this in order that it is easier to bisect the history or for other contributors to understand exactly the change a commit relates to. There is nothing worse than commits which combine a working bug fix with a half-written feature -- split them out!
Obviously, it's possible to inadvertently create a misleading history by re-arranging the order that work was done or getting rid of failed attempts at a solution, but generally the false reality is easier to understand and good understanding is key.