Recommendations for git/GitHub

[milanmlft]

Should we also add some recommendations regarding git/GitHub use?
E.g.

1. Commit messages (length, contents, ...)
2. Branch names
3. PR titles
4. PR merge strategy (<-- I feel this one is most impactful)
5. Branch protection rules
6. Other GH settings like automatic branch deletion, required reviewers, ...

• ...

Also related: use of semantic versioning

Definition of done

• There is an initial GitHub page.
• Review of internal docs for stuff to pull out.

[samcunliffe]

It's interesting that I think of most of these things as obvious. But yeah, maybe we should write this all down.

2: Branch names we de-facto always seem to use <initials>/<name of feature>

sc/fix-milans-terrible-production-critical-bug-issue-01

... just as a random example. Do we need to write down that we recommend <initials>/description-of-feature?

[milanmlft]

I think that's not a terrible idea. I for one wasn't really used to that style but just started doing it as I saw that others were doing it in my projects.
Another convention is to use <category>/<description>, where <category> is one of a limited set of doc, fix, feat, test for example.