Gitea issue templates (.gitea/issue_template/): - bug.yml: structured form requiring version, environment, what-happened, repro steps, expected, optional logs. Routes security reports to security@librete.ch instead of public issues. - feature.yml: prompts for the underlying problem before the proposed solution, plus alternatives and out-of-scope. Pull request template (.gitea/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md): checklist for tests, lint, manual exercise, docs, and changelog. Asks for explicit reviewer notes so trade-offs surface in the PR description rather than being lost in chat. CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md: links to Contributor Covenant 2.1 verbatim rather than inlining; documents scope, reporting address (conduct@librete.ch), and points enforcement at the Covenant's own Enforcement Guidelines. README links the docs/ tree, CONTRIBUTING, and the CoC so new contributors find the entry points. Closes #31. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
553 B
553 B
Summary
What does this PR change, and why?
Linked issue
Closes #
Changes
Testing
make testpasses locallymake lintpasses locally- Added or updated tests for the changed behaviour
- Manually exercised the affected flow (frontend / API / etc.)
Documentation
- Updated relevant docs in
docs/ - Updated
CHANGELOG.mdif user-visible - No documentation change needed
Notes for reviewers
Anything you want a reviewer to look at specifically? Trade-offs considered? Migrations to flag?