Homogenise prefix

[germa89]

So far we have:

# Commit
"build" "chore" "ci" "docs" "feat" "fix" "perf" "refactor" "revert" "style" "test" 

# branch 
"dependabot" "docs" "feat" "fix" "junk" "maint" "no-ci" "release" "test" "testing" 

# pull-request 
"build" "chore" "ci" "docs" "feat" "fix" "perf" "refactor" "revert" "style" "test" 

[germa89]

The current distribution is a bit of a mess...

prefix	Commit	Branch	Pull-request
build	x		x
chore	x		x
ci	x		x
dependabot		x
docs	x	x	x
feat	x	x	x
fix	x	x	x
junk		x
maint		x
no-ci		x
perf	x		x
refactor	x		x
release		x
revert	x		x
style	x		x
test	x	x	x
testing		x

[SMoraisAnsys]

Guess the branch one should follow a bit closer the other ones. I didn't see that many differences :o Having dependabot and release exclusive to the branches makes sense but we might homogenize with commit and pr !

[germa89]

Proposing:

Prefix

Rules:

• Each pull-request prefix should have an equally named branch prefix.
• Each branch prefix should have an equally named commit prefix.

prefix	Commit	Branch	Pull-request
build	x	x	x
chore	x
ci	x	x	x
docs	x	x	x
feat	x	x	x
fix	x	x	x
maint	x	x	x
no-ci	x	x	x
perf	x	x	x
refactor	x	x	x
revert	x	x	x
style	x
test	x
testing	x	x

Special prefix

These prefix do not follow the mentioned rules:

prefix	Commit	Branch	Pull-request
dependabot		x
release	x	x
~junk~		x

Notes

• I guess that test is for adding tests, and testing for trying new things?
  I would rename testing to trial or draft.
• Does it make sense to have test (unit testing) for branches and PRs?
  I think unit tests should be added as part of other PRs.
  But I do acknowledge there could be PRs aiming to increase coverage.
• I think testing (new things) and junk is repetitive. I would delete junk.
• If we keep junk, I do not think there should be PR.
• Does it make sense to have style PRs/branches?? I think style commits should go into refactor PRs.

Suggestions about build, maint, ci and no-ci

I think build, and maint could be unified. I do understand that maint is of a bigger scope, and in some cases we might want to keep a better track of dependencies using build.

However I would think that most of PRs (at least in PyMAPDL) that are aiming to "maintenance" are going to be the "build" ones. Fixing CICD, improving it or editing project files, could fall into maintenance or fix, or feat. So I do not think the label maint are going to have much more scope/usage than build. So I would just keep one.

Same with ci, I would just use maint since CICD can be considered to be used for maintanance, since it is not giving a service to the user (they do not use CICD, we do).

I would keep no-ci just for those branches that should not trigger CICD, but I think a label is better for this.