Reduce number of files at repo root

[dwilding]

Discussed in Madrid:

• Merge HACKING.md and CONTRIBUTING.md
• Move files under .github provided GitHub still surfaces them as tabs (e.g., Code of conduct, Contributing)
• release.py could move to .github or .scripts (as part of our plan to rework the release script)
• Consider whether to move STYLE.md to a different repo, for example, our team-wide public repo https://github.com/canonical/charm-tech
• Decide whether to move the changelog to the docs. If we decide to do this, it ought to be a separate PR

[tonyandrewmeyer]

• Keep LICENSE.txt at the root, but rename to LICENSE

#2482 but apparently GitHub was listening in as they fixed it around the same time we had that chat.

• release.py could move to .github or .scripts

I suggest @james-garner-canonical and I do this in our release script reworking project.

• Consider whether to move STYLE.md to a different repo, e.g., if we set up a public team-wide repo

Repo is canonical/charm-tech, I'll add everyone to it and configure via repo automation shortly.

• Decide whether to move the changelog to the docs. If we decide to do this, it ought to be a separate PR

This should be add, not move, in my very strong opinion.

[benhoyt]

Thanks for this. Now that GitHub has fixed the "*.txt" issue, let's keep LICENSE.txt as is. I think having the .txt extension is helpful (for humans, IDEs, and so on). I've removed this from the issue description.

Repo is canonical/charm-tech, I'll add everyone to it and configure via repo automation shortly.

Thanks, @tonyandrewmeyer.

Decide whether to move the changelog to the docs. If we decide to do this, it ought to be a separate PR

This should be add, not move, in my very strong opinion.

Fair. Or I guess we could have it in the docs and then copy it to the release in the (new) release script? Either way, I don't have strong opinions.

[tonyandrewmeyer]

Decide whether to move the changelog to the docs. If we decide to do this, it ought to be a separate PR

This should be add, not move, in my very strong opinion.

Fair. Or I guess we could have it in the docs and then copy it to the release in the (new) release script? Either way, I don't have strong opinions.

I would be fine with that, yes. As long as it ends up in the tarball, basically - I think on GitHub itself you have both the releases page and the actual git log so it's not that necessary there.