I hear often that git commit messages must be kept in a particular uniform local style for tooling and audit purposes. Some people might actually be getting that out of their git history, but I think it’s much less common than it is made out to be.
First off, to keep things truly uniform throughout the project you must have a team that is extremely focused on maintaining their tradition. A lot of teams are disciplined about it most of the time, but if you let a few oopsies slip through you have to account for them forever. Uniformity also means a team with the discipline to avoid tweaking the format all the time, unless you’re willing to rewrite history continuously to account for new structure. Especially when you consider the degree to which structured commits reference external tools (issue trackers, CI, VCS, …), there’s few projects that can afford that kind of attention to detail in perpetuity.
I think it is better to see git through a sort of postmodern lens.
The history is created to help make sense of the changing state of the
repository, and the structure we choose just reflects the story we’re
telling at the time. Commitments we make on how to tell the shared
history we can agree on might involve structure as a way of
demonstrating investment, but that doesn’t make it necessarily more
correct. A more personal or whimsical project might happily allow
"fix rubocop" as a checkpoint. The tool doesn’t care.