Add workflows

[RayStick]

Closes #51

Adds workflows

Proposed Changes

• The same as this merged PR for phys2bids but implemented for this repo. All I did was change the directory locations in the .github/labeler.yml file, otherwise the files are the same as the phys2bids files
• The same as this merged PR for phys2bids but implemented for this repo.

Questions for reviewers

1. Should we add a Contributors section in the README like our other repos? I think yes!
2. This is still a draft because I am wondering about the default branch being mkdocs - does any workflow code need to change (content/location) to reflect that?

Change Type

• bugfix
• refactoring
• infrastructure
• documentation
• other

Checklist before review

• I added everything I wanted to add to this PR.
• [Documentation only] I built the docs locally.
• My contribution is harmonious with the rest of the code: I'm not introducing repetitions.
• My code respects the adopted style, especially linting conventions.
• The title of this PR is explanatory on its own, enough to be understood as part of a changelog.
• I added or indicated the right labels.

• I added information regarding the timeline of completion for this PR.

• Please, comment on my PR while it's a draft and give me feedback on the development!

[me-pic]

Should we add the hyperlink to the Physiopy website home page ?
https://physiopy.github.io/

[RayStick]

see add link

[m-miedema]

Re: mkdocs, I'm not sure that that would change anything - maybe the simplest thing is to assume it won't and then test it? It's good to know since I imagine this might also have implications for the Community Practices repo!

I do think it's good to have a contributors readme but was wondering about the directive to check that contributions are accurately reflected on the website. Is the website page one that gets manually updated every so often? I wouldn't want someone to expect to see changes reflected there instantaneously.

[RayStick]

Yes true, I think it will work, and we can test it and change accordingly if not :-)

You make a good point. The wording kind of suggests that it would automatically happen - contributors don't get added automatically in either place mentioned currently. I guess it's a flag for people to check and follow up, but open to changing wording!

[RayStick]

Yes true, I think it will work, and we can test it and change accordingly if not :-)

You make a good point. The wording kind of suggests that it would automatically happen - contributors don't get added automatically in either place mentioned currently. I guess it's a flag for people to check and follow up, but open to changing wording!

But then again, this won't happen regularly, only the first time someone opens a PR, so perhaps okay to leave for now (as a general reminder for them to check their contributions going forward)

[m-miedema]

Yes true, I think it will work, and we can test it and change accordingly if not :-)
You make a good point. The wording kind of suggests that it would automatically happen - contributors don't get added automatically in either place mentioned currently. I guess it's a flag for people to check and follow up, but open to changing wording!

But then again, this won't happen regularly, only the first time someone opens a PR, so perhaps okay to leave for now (as a general reminder for them to check their contributions going forward)

That makes sense to me! I think as long as we have a link to the Contributor's Guide, the wording there sets the correct expectation.

[RayStick]

@m-miedema shall we merge for now? Or make some changes to the wording first?