We could use Conventional Commits

"The Conventional Commits specification is a lightweight convention on top of commit messages. It provides an easy set of rules for creating an explicit commit history; which makes it easier to write automated tools on top of. This convention dovetails with [SemVer](https://semver.org/), by describing the features, fixes, and breaking changes made in commit messages."

https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

I find that the pull request template could be improved. A lot of the time the only choice is to mark stuff as `[DOCS]` when a lot of the time it really is something else.

https://github.com/apache/sedona/blob/master/.github/pull_request_template.md

So this task if approved would be to also update the contributing guides and pull request template etc

### Why Use Conventional Commits

- Automatically generating CHANGELOGs.
- Automatically determining a semantic version bump (based on the types of commits landed).
- Communicating the nature of changes to teammates, the public, and other stakeholders.
- Triggering build and publish processes.
- Making it easier for people to contribute to your projects, by allowing them to explore a more structured commit history.

Start with .github/pull_request_template.md and read the linked Conventional Commits specification, then locate the repository's contributing guides. Update the pull request template and relevant guides to explain the proposed commit categories, and verify that the contribution documentation consistently reflects the convention.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.