CI: update publishing workflow

[nilason]

Generates Git derived data files, which are added to release tarballs of both *.tar.gz and tar.xz formats. Accompanied by md5 and sha256 checksum files.

Solves #3430, depends on #3435.

Initially put up as draft, if this agreed upon the howto_release.md need to be updated.

[nilason]

This has also to be combined somehow with create_release_draft.yml.

[nilason]

Updated this workflow to re-use (update) create_release_draft.yml.

Now it also contains the core_modules_with_last_commit.patch, but not the json file (as it is already included in tarball).

This keeps the previous behaviour and adds the new release packages.

Assets created:

ChangeLog.gz
core_modules_with_last_commit.patch
grass-${version}.tar.gz
grass-${version}.tar.gz.md5
grass-${version}.tar.gz.sha256
grass-${version}.tar.xz
grass-${version}.tar.xz.md5
grass-${version}.tar.xz.sha256
Source code (zip)
Source code (tar.gz)

[nilason]

This now fails because it is missing #3435.

Se my bogus test release for result.

[nilason]

Side note:
This workflow (before this PR) use the two https://github.com/actions/upload-release-asset https://github.com/actions/create-release actions, which are both no more maintained (archived).

The single use of https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-release replaces them and also the https://github.com/actions/upload-artifact.

[echoix]

Was this ready and intended to be merged? I know we need to ignore the failure in the new workflow for now due to to missing parts

[nilason]

Was this ready and intended to be merged?

Yes. As this now re-use the create_release_draft.yml workflow, Readme doesn't need to be updated (I believe).

[echoix]

Is #3435 still a requirement? If so we could sprint it up a little

[echoix]

Before merging this PR, it might need a new title, since it isn't a new workflow. Also, is the existing workflow file name still appropriate for what it now does? If ever it is changed, since the contents of the workflow changed a lot, maybe we would need a mini PR that renames the file before this PR is merged, to be able to follow the file history after renames.

[nilason]

Before merging this PR, it might need a new title, since it isn't a new workflow.

Done.

Also, is the existing workflow file name still appropriate for what it now does?

I think the file name is quite ok, reflecting what it does, no need to change.