Hi guys, I've been looking at branch naming in the lakeFS repository and noticed that many branches are not created according to the naming conventions under the contributing doc:

4. If you're adding new functionality, create a new branch named feature/<DESCRIPTIVE NAME>
5. If you're fixing a bug, create a new branch named fix/<DESCRIPTIVE NAME>-<ISSUE NUMBER>

Maybe it's good to open this topic to discussion and understand if the requirement is important and relevant and to strictly enforce it. Otherwise maybe we should remove this requirement altogether / define a new one that makes more sense?

Note that external contribution will be from fork which is a little different than internal one that done though branch. The above naming was to enable quick lookup by prefix.

I think we should comply with that convention as it's a descriptive view of what each branch includes and will make it easier for us to understand the changes it suggests.

I prefer not to include the issue number as relations changes and update the description for each time is not the mechanism I like to use. same for pr that closes multiple issues.

@Barak Amar I tend to agree with you - but do you have an alternative suggestion for the naming requirements?

Currently we have labels - for different use cases and area in the code. Usually I prefer a prefix like

docs: ...

where you scope the change to an area, follow by the description. Labels helps to tag: bug, feature, blocker and etc...

So since my initial question was regarding the branch naming - I'm assuming you are suggesting to remove this requirement and instead add a requirement for the commit message?

No, its my bad I thought you are talking about the bug/fix description/title, not the branch

So you suggest keeping the branch prefix? What about the description / issue number?