Use same changelog workflow as the rest of the roman repositories

[WilliamJamieson]

This PR updates the changelog CI to use the same changelog workflow used by rad and roman_datamodels. This workflow draws from an independent centralized workflow that has several additional features (including milestone verification if we wish to turn that on).

Checklist

• added entry in CHANGES.rst under the corresponding subsection
• updated relevant tests
• updated relevant documentation
• updated relevant milestone(s)
• added relevant label(s)

[WilliamJamieson]

The independent workflow is managed by @pllim.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (addb5de) 76.91% compared to head (de8973a) 76.91%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #772   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   76.91%   76.91%           
=======================================
  Files          90       90           
  Lines        5467     5467           
=======================================
  Hits         4205     4205           
  Misses       1262     1262           

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
nightly	64.72% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 0d15352

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[pllim]

FWIW Brigitta asked if I am interested to upstream this to Scientific Python but I was hesitant because I am scared it is going to get refactored and break stuff. But if STScI is not comfortable with this workflow in my own account, I can revisit that idea with Brigitta. It should not go under spacetelescope because it is used by Astropy too.

[zacharyburnett]

FWIW Brigitta asked if I am interested to upstream this to Scientific Python but I was hesitant because I am scared it is going to get refactored and break stuff. But if STScI is not comfortable with this workflow in my own account, I can revisit that idea with Brigitta. It should not go under spacetelescope because it is used by Astropy too.

would it be possible to put it under OpenAstronomy?

[WilliamJamieson]

FWIW Brigitta asked if I am interested to upstream this to Scientific Python but I was hesitant because I am scared it is going to get refactored and break stuff. But if STScI is not comfortable with this workflow in my own account, I can revisit that idea with Brigitta. It should not go under spacetelescope because it is used by Astropy too.

We can fork and change it if it starts breaking stuff for space telescope.

[pllim]

I am not a member of OpenAstronomy

[pllim]

Let me ask around. But in the meantime, nothing stops you from using it as-is right now.

[WilliamJamieson]

Let me ask around. But in the meantime, nothing stops you from using it as-is right now.

Its used by the rest of roman, asdf, and jdaviz... so we (STScI) have motivation to fork back if there ends up being an issue like you fear.

[pllim]

Yeah but even if I move it, the existing call would still work. So no reason to wait around for a political move here.

[pllim]

I'll probably just batch PR to all the affected repos when the move happens.

[bsipocz]

FWIW Brigitta asked if I am interested to upstream this to Scientific Python but I was hesitant because I am scared it is going to get refactored and break stuff.

Well, just to chime in, the format is used in my repos, too, so I'm motivated enough not to break the current format :)