I'm curious if anyone working in smaller teams (say, <6 devs) has found it worthwhile to try to standardize some of the git process. Larger teams I've worked in have tended to have some standards we're following - but the times I've worked on smaller teams it's tended to be
I think if I were starting a team for scratch it's likely something I'd establish from the beginning - commit message guidelines, PR requirements, squash/rebase/merge standards. But I've only ever come into teams that have been working on the product for at least a year - and it's never seemed worth the 'political capital' to wrangle the team into a new standard for it.
I've tended to opt for doing things the way I think is right given that we aren't following a standard anyways - and pointing to the benefits of it when they come up.
git hooks from https://pre-commit.com
git-conventional-commits to enforce standardized messages
linting
github branch protection rules
CODEOWNERS file and PR templates to speed PR creation
One issue we still have is that in this particular organization, different teams have different standards, and we have to deal with those differences which causes annoyance but not really much more.
I think if I were starting a team for scratch it's likely something I'd establish from the beginning - commit message guidelines, PR requirements, squash/rebase/merge standards. But I've only ever come into teams that have been working on the product for at least a year - and it's never seemed worth the 'political capital' to wrangle the team into a new standard for it.
I've tended to opt for doing things the way I think is right given that we aren't following a standard anyways - and pointing to the benefits of it when they come up.