Remove bors and use GitHub merge queue

[curquiza]

Settings changed to accept merge queue ✅

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation

  • Simplified PR contribution guidelines by removing outdated workflow requirements.

• Chores

  • Updated CI/CD workflow triggers for improved processing efficiency.
  • Removed external integration badge from README.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request removes Bors automation integration across configuration and documentation. Changes include deleting a Bors mention replacer from the release template, removing branch filters from CI workflows in favor of a merge_group trigger, stripping Bors automation guidance from contributor documentation, and eliminating the Bors badge from the README.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
CI/CD configuration updates \.github/release-draft-template\.yml, \.github/workflows/tests\.yml	Removed @bors replacer rule from release template; removed trying/staging branch filters and added merge_group trigger to workflow, narrowing push events to main branch only.
Documentation cleanup CONTRIBUTING\.md, README\.md	Removed PR rebasing automation guidance and associated subsection from contributing guide; deleted Bors enabled badge reference from README.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• Simple removals with no logic changes or additions
• Configuration and documentation files only
• Straightforward verification that removed elements are no longer needed

Poem

🐰 Farewell, dear Bors, your automation dance,
We've moved beyond the merge-queue's trance.
New workflows guide our code's release,
No more rebasing—we find our peace! 🌿

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'Remove bors and use GitHub merge queue' directly and clearly summarizes the main changes across all files: removing bors-related configuration and documentation while introducing GitHub's merge queue functionality.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch remove-bors

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 31ff8a2 and 7f533b8.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• .github/release-draft-template.yml (0 hunks)
• .github/workflows/tests.yml (1 hunks)
• CONTRIBUTING.md (0 hunks)
• README.md (0 hunks)

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)

• .github/release-draft-template.yml
• README.md
• CONTRIBUTING.md

🔇 Additional comments (2)

.github/workflows/tests.yml (2)

8-8: ✓ Correct integration with GitHub merge queue.

Adding the merge_group trigger is the right approach for native GitHub merge queue integration, replacing Bors's temporary branch workflow. The restriction of push events to the main branch is also appropriate now that Bors's trying and staging branches are no longer needed.

---

14-14: Verify the job condition works correctly with merge_group events.

The if condition references github.base_ref, which may not be available or behave as expected in the merge_group event context. During merge queue operations, the reference structure differs from pull requests. Ensure the condition evaluates safely for merge_group events—the jobs should run when triggered by merge_group, but the startsWith check against a potentially undefined base_ref could cause unexpected behavior.

You can verify this by:

1. Checking the GitHub merge_group event documentation to confirm which context variables are available.
2. Testing the workflow with a merge queue operation to confirm jobs execute as expected.
3. If base_ref is unavailable in merge_group context, consider adjusting the condition or adding a guard clause.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[brunoocasali]

LGTM!