Orchestrator Git Standards

Branch naming standards use conventional prefixes like `feature/`, `fix/`, and `chore/` followed by descriptive names. This approach organizes branches by type, making repository structure immediately clear and enabling automated workflows that recognize branch patterns.

Conventional commits follow a structured format: type, scope, and description. This practice creates a navigable, machine-readable history that supports automated changelog generation and makes it easy to trace what changed and why across your project.

Start by naming your branch using the conventional format `feature/description`, then make commits with structured messages following the `type(scope): description` pattern. This establishes clean development from the beginning and ensures your work integrates smoothly with team standards.

Inconsistent practices lead to merge conflicts, unclear history, and collaboration friction. Enforcing standards for branch naming, commit messages, and repository organization ensures all team members follow the same patterns, reducing confusion and making code review and merging predictable.

Yes. Conventional standards integrate throughout the entire workflow—from branch creation through pull requests to rebasing and merging. Following these patterns during PRs maintains clean history and ensures your staged changes align with project conventions before integration.

You can apply standards going forward on new branches and commits. For existing history, interactive rebasing allows selective cleanup of commits to align with conventional format, though this requires care in shared repositories to avoid disrupting team members' work.