ADR 2: Branch Naming¶

Status¶

Accepted

Context¶

We have adopted naming branches after the eventual commit that would merge them into the main branch (chore, feat, fix). Using a path format, we get things like feat/cli_update. How do we do this with individual packages?

Decision¶

Propose continuing to use a "path" branch naming convention following the format: package or scope / conventional commit / description.

The major decision here is the order in which we put the commit and package. Which should come first? Originally you started with the commit first. However this ADR memorializes choosing the above convention because we still are more interested in starting broadly (with the package) and then narrowing in on what the branch is working on.

Broadly we can think of starting very general and getting specific, which is similar to how paths work in the first place.

Consequences¶

It is easier to name branches consistently so I can easily refer to them and do not waste bandwidth on trying to remember the convention.