Update changelog script

[aaruni96]

Updates the changelog workflow to allow for an optional basetag. Also pushes change log stuff to ignore list for CI

Resolves #4666
Resolves #4670
Resolves #4671

[aaruni96]

Result at #4720

just talked and we don't merge this right now

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.89%. Comparing base (998fa2e) to head (a5b6a82).
Report is 27 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4719      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.84%   84.89%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         697      706       +9     
  Lines       94232    95341    +1109     
==========================================
+ Hits        79949    80940     +991     
- Misses      14283    14401     +118     

see 91 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[fingolfin]

Why drop the v?

Suggested change

	basetag = f"{major}.{minor}dev"
	basetag = f"v{major}.{minor}dev"

[aaruni96]

This is due to an inconsistency (and I didn't look back far enough)

$ git tag --list | grep 'dev'
1.5dev
v1.4dev

The latest tag doesn't have the v in front of it. But 1.4 does (and I didn't look that far back, just tried making changelog for 1.5.0).
How do we handle this? Do we add back the v in code, and make a new tag identical to 1.5dev, but call it v1.5dev ?

[fingolfin]

Looks good to me no, only don't understand why that one tag value was changed

[aaruni96]

Summary after discussing privately with @fingolfin :

• We should add back the v in the basetag label removed in a5b6a82, and create a new tag v1.5dev, which is identical to the tag 1.5dev except for the name
• we should document our requirements for tag names v1.xdev in our documentation at https://docs.oscar-system.org/dev/DeveloperDocumentation/release/
• we should maybe adapt this script from GAP to make the release process more automated / less prone to human mistakes.

Thoughts @lgoettgens @benlorenz ?

[benlorenz]

I think we should use the version with v and added the tag: https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/releases/tag/v1.5dev

[lgoettgens]

Seems like a human mistake on my side. I am happy to have either documentation or some automation regarding this to reduce the possibility of future similar errors

[aaruni96]

I have restored the v, updated the documentation to reflect this, and update the github action.

[aaruni96]

we should maybe adapt this script from GAP to make the release process more automated / less prone to human mistakes.

I propose we do that in a separate PR.