update pull request template

[romanc]

Description

There are two small things I'd like to update in the PR template:

1. Remove the style guidelines from the checklist.
   Reasoning We enforce "the style guidelines of this project" with linting. That process is automatic and thus the checkbox is always checked. I don't see a need for it anymore.
2. Remove the hotfix instructions from the description section.
   Reasoning The release (and patch release) process are described in this internal documentation. Per se, a PR has nothing to do with whether or not a (patch) release is made.

How has this been tested?

Any potential concerns should be discussed in the NASA/NOAA sync on Friday.

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas: N/A
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (e.g. add new modules to docs/docstrings/)
• My changes generate no new warnings
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules: N/A
• New check tests, if applicable, are included: N/A

[twicki]

This all makes sense

[oelbert]

The style guidelines are more than just what's in the linter and include things like naming conventions, so I would keep that in the checklist. Otherwise looks good, thanks for updating this!

[oelbert]

I actually would keep this, as the style guidelines encompass more than just linting

[romanc]

I'd like to argue this one. In my opinion, a PR checklist should be self contained in the sense that developers can do something about each point. To the best of my knowledge, there are no "style guidelines of this project" other than "please run the linter", which run automatically. Everything else is not written down anywhere and will naturally come up in code reviews if reviewer think it's worth debating about.

I am happy to re-introduce this line once there is a style guide that I can link from the checklist item (such that (new) developers can go and do something (i.e. read up) on their own). For now, I think we have a very small team of people contributing and - in my experience - debates about naming conventions and other implied style issues almost never come up in practice.

[romanc]

@oelbert what do you think?