STY: Accept three-letter prefix for maintenance commits

[jhlegarreta]

Accept three-letter prefix for maintenance commits: accept MNT:

• Less typing; still readable
• All other prefixes are three-letter prefixes except for CI
• There has been a slight shift towards MNT lately, e.g. https://github.com/nipreps/fmriprep/blob/f3464b5cd4991042be18d131cbf3ed9c8dd413d9/CHANGES.rst?plain=1#L65; https://github.com/nipreps/smriprep/blob/b839befd008e02f329c59aa634583a18e4049829/CHANGES.rst?plain=1#L31; https://github.com/nipreps/nireports/blob/968d98f7774fafbc745f9d5eb73b40d1e7be4e4c/CHANGES.rst?plain=1#L34; https://github.com/nipreps/sdcflows/blob/b4a01f6e2071a538896e228cba9a43c10b8256cb/CHANGES.rst?plain=1#L34

Take advantage of the commit to specify that commit messages should also be prefixed and that changes in a commit should serve a coherent purpose.

[jhlegarreta]

I am in two minds about this, but @effigies seems to have opted for this lately, although prefixes (e.g. chore) that are adopted in the JS community have also been used across PRs.

[effigies]

The reference for chore/etc is: https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

It's hard for me to remember different conventions for commits across different repositories. It's easier to adjust the PR prefix on submission. Maybe we can mention both, as both are readable, and make the point that each commit should do one thing and be tagged appropriately?

[jhlegarreta]

It's hard for me to remember different conventions for commits across different repositories.

I share the feeling; I have used commitizen in another project to partially automate the commit prefixes. Other tool names such as husky or commitlint appear in a quick search. All seem to use the conventionalcommit conventions.

Maybe we can mention both, as both are readable, and make the point that each commit should do one thing and be tagged appropriately?

Until we have the bandwidth to try and adopt one of these, the suggestion seems reasonable.