integrate RecipesBase and RecipesPipeline into Plots

[t-bltg]

Fix #4359.

Setup common CI: RecipesBase > RecipesPipeline > Plots.

RecipesPipeline will benefit from this since we won't have to test Plots examples in RecipesPipeline.

The CI overhead is negligible: ~10s for testing RecipesBase and ~50s for testing RecipesPipeline.

• make a PR in https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General, with the following content:

https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General/blob/master/R/RecipesBase/Package.toml

name = "RecipesBase"
uuid = "3cdcf5f2-1ef4-517c-9805-6587b60abb01"
repo = "https://github.com/JuliaPlots/Plots.jl.git"
subdir = "RecipesBase"

https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General/blob/master/R/RecipesPipeline/Package.toml

name = "RecipesPipeline"
uuid = "01d81517-befc-4cb6-b9ec-a95719d0359c"
repo = "https://github.com/JuliaPlots/Plots.jl.git"
subdir = "RecipesPipeline"

• archive both RecipesBase.jl and RecipesPipeline.jl repos
• move both docs to PlotDocs.jl (see add RecipesBase and RecipesPipeline docs PlotDocs.jl#305)
• move all issues to Plots.jl, with a corresponding tag for triage

[t-bltg]

The merge of RecipesBase and RecipesPipeline was created using the following commands (inspired from https://stackoverflow.com/a/10548919):

$ sudo apt install git-filter-repo

# clone all repos (vanilla)
git clone https://github.com/JuliaPlots/RecipesPipeline.jl
git clone https://github.com/JuliaPlots/RecipesBase.jl
git clone https://github.com/JuliaPlots/Plots.jl

RecipesPipeline=$PWD/RecipesPipeline.jl
RecipesBase=$PWD/RecipesBase.jl
Plots=$PWD/Plots.jl

# create a dedicated branch for this PR
(cd $Plots; git checkout -b rb_rp_hist)

# process `RecipesBase`
(
  cd $RecipesBase
  git filter-repo --to-subdirectory-filter RecipesBase
)
(
  cd $Plots
  git remote add RecipesBase $RecipesBase
  git fetch $RecipesBase master
  git merge --allow-unrelated-histories FETCH_HEAD
  git remote remove RecipesBase
)

# process `RecipesPipeline` (same procedure as previous)
(
  cd $RecipesPipeline
  git filter-repo --to-subdirectory-filter RecipesPipeline
)
(
  cd $Plots
  git remote add RecipesPipeline $RecipesPipeline
  git fetch $RecipesPipeline master
  git merge --allow-unrelated-histories FETCH_HEAD
  git remote remove RecipesPipeline
)

The following sanity check passes (inspired from JuliaRegistries/General#35965 (comment)):

using TOML

cd("Plots.jl")

for pkg ∈ ("RecipesBase", "RecipesPipeline", "Plots")
  versions = TOML.parsefile(joinpath(first(DEPOT_PATH), "registries", "General", pkg[1:1], pkg, "Versions.toml"))

  found = all(sort(collect(keys(versions)))) do version
    tree_sha = versions[version]["git-tree-sha1"]
    try
      readchomp(`git rev-parse -q --verify "$(tree_sha)^{tree}"`)
      return true
    catch
      return false
    end
  end
  println(pkg, ": ", found ? "all versions found!" : "ney")
end

@DilumAluthge, can I request your expertise on this procedure, regarding the julia General registry: is this approach valid ? Did I forget anything ?

@BeastyBlacksmith, I'm requesting your review again.
This is sensitive since we don't want to break RecipesPipeline and RecipesBase older releases in the general registry. I prefer to merge this without modifications, and the cleanup docs and .github dirs afterwards.

[BeastyBlacksmith]

This is sensitive since we don't want to break RecipesPipeline and RecipesBase older releases in the general registry

honestly, I don't know how I could test that

[t-bltg]

Thanks, normally, the sanity check above should cover that (i.e. if the RB and RP shas of the registry are found in this branch with subrepos, then we're good).
I'm thinking out loud here to avoid potential issues regarding the registry.

I have also checked installation against a single depot with this General registry PR applied:

julia> first(DEPOT_PATH)
# points to a modified local registry
(@v1.8) pkg> activate --temp
(jl_zodEAE) pkg> add Plots@1.30.0  # test adding an old version
[...]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 80.63% // Head: 80.63% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (7f26691) compared to base (8fef7aa).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4419   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.63%   80.63%           
=======================================
  Files          30       30           
  Lines        7469     7469           
=======================================
  Hits         6023     6023           
  Misses       1446     1446           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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