[add] content to add to contributing.md

[thegrumpyenby]

brain dump from google doc:

• Naming convention for branches

type/issue#/name
ex: feat/187/add-link-to-main-menu
when no issue number, e.g. for copy copy/pastel-feeback-round1
avoid same names

• Conventional comments/commits

https://conventionalcomments.org/
https://www.conventionalcommits.org/

• add info from recruiting documents (Kai has them) [docs] Add recruitment-relevant info to contributing.md #21

level of experience, skill set, expectations, etc.

• add info from website readme

pull in basics from next-website readme (issues, comments)

• how to do reviews

• Make sure issues and PRs are linked

• Self-assign issue

• If you create a PR tag a reviewer if you already know who

• If you don’t know who, post in #tech on slack and ask or tag in who you think might be the right person

• encourage peer reviewing

• Draft PRs

• Good for people to go and work on an issue they’re not super confident in yet or don’t have a concrete way to solve it

• Can have other people come in and leave comments and help

• make sure branch is linked to the issue

• push your branch (git won’t let you push if there are no changes made)

• create a draft PR and link it to the issue

Reasons for Draft PR
Saves code to GH cloud because changes are pushed
So other people can see work

• Issue creation

• Add good examples for issues, e.g. good example for parent issue with sub issues: [Page]: Create new Contact Page next-website-v2#613

• Describe that it’s good practice to add visuals: screenshot if there’s a bug to be fixed, screenshot of relevant section of figma design (incl. link to figma file), etc.

Mindmap for Distribute Aids documentation ecosystem

[LauraLangdon]

I have all of these covered in #27, except the bits about reviewing PRs because that should really go in a doc for maintainers, not contributors. I'll make an issue for that!

[thegrumpyenby]

that should really go in a doc for maintainers, not contributors. I'll make an issue for that!

aren’t we discouraging peer reviews then, if that info isn’t available to everyone? Most people doing reviews now are not maintainers!