Document non-squash release back-merge procedure (#226)

[kirich1409]

Summary

Documents the correct release procedure in CONTRIBUTING.md to fix the recurring history-divergence problem described in #226.

Root cause: develop → main and back-merges were previously squash-merged. Squash collapses the merge, so the release commit and the bot's Package.swift commit on main never become ancestors of develop. Each release leaves main "ahead" and periodically requires manual reconciliation.

Solution (Approach A — linear develop, real merge into main):

• develop → main is performed with a real merge commit (git merge --no-ff develop, pushed directly — main has no ruleset). This makes all develop commits ancestors of main; history no longer diverges.
• Back-merge main → develop stays a squash-PR (next -SNAPSHOT bump + Package.swift sync), so develop remains linear and the required_linear_history ruleset is untouched.

No code/CI/GitHub-settings changes — documentation only.

Changes to CONTRIBUTING.md

• New Branching Model section: branch roles + per-operation merge policy table.
• Releasing a New Version rewritten as a 4-step procedure (prepare on develop → real merge into main → tag → back-merge squash-PR).
• Fixed stale facts verified against current publish.yml:
  • Package.swift bot commit lands directly in main on v* tag push.
  • SNAPSHOT publishing on branch push is disabled; now only via workflow_dispatch.
  • Maven Central publish is USER_MANAGED (manual promote in Portal UI).
• Submitting Changes: branch from / PR against develop, not main.

Verification

Pure documentation edit — build/test gates inapplicable (spotless covers only .kt/.kts). Reviewed for internal consistency and against publish.yml facts; the documented git merge --no-ff + direct push to main is valid under main's empty ruleset, and the flow does not violate required_linear_history on develop (back-merge = squash-PR).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[qodo-code-review]

Qodo reviews are paused for this user.

Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more →

On a Teams plan?
Reviews resume once this user has a paid seat and their Git account is linked in Qodo.
Link Git account →

Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center?
These require an Enterprise plan - Contact us
Contact us →

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 1 file

_{Re-trigger cubic}