Small documentation fixes

[abachma2]

This PR includes some small documentation fixes such as:

• a note in the CONTRIBUTING that tells developers to update the CHANGELOG, addressing what was started in Mention necessity of creating news items for PRs. #1561
• fix the formatting for cross referencing in INSTALL.rst hat renders correctly on the website and when viewed on GitHub
• change conda package for dependencies to install only the dependencies for the cyclus package, allowing us to not have to maintain a core package and a dependencies package.
• Change the branch name for guiding new developers in the README

[github-actions]

Downstream Build Status Report - 92d295b - 2024-04-15 09:09:15 -0500

Build FROM cyclus_20.04_apt/cyclus

• Cycamore: Success ✅
• Cymetric: Success ✅

Build FROM cyclus_20.04_conda/cyclus

• Cycamore: Success ✅
• Cymetric: Success ✅

Build FROM cyclus_22.04_apt/cyclus

• Cycamore: Success ✅
• Cymetric: Success ✅

Build FROM cyclus_22.04_conda/cyclus

• Cycamore: Success ✅
• Cymetric: Success ✅

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8690624491

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.001%) to 32.601%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 8512199629:	0.001%
Covered Lines:	53081
Relevant Lines:	129079

---

💛 - Coveralls

[abachma2]

Ok. So this isn't working for me either, even though I could have sworn it worked yesterday. The main issue we are running into here is that I am trying to find a format for internal hyperlinks that works when rendering this on the website and when you view it on GitHub. I don't think this is possible, because we would need one to point to a .rst file and the other to point to a .html file.

So a few ideas here:

• we can keep the install files as separate things in each repo instead of getting the ones from the Cyclus and Cycamore repos so that we can make sure everything renders as needed
• not worry about rendering on github (which is what we do in the website repo), and just link to the website.
• We can have the website link to the file on Github, via the full web address, where everything renders correctly.

I am also open to other ideas.

[gonuke]

I wonder if we can use Markdown files and this extension when we pull it into the website? No idea if it will generate URLs correctly. 🤷‍♂️

[bennibbelink]

There must ways to get what we want if we add a pre-processing step. That extension might work, I'll see what else I can find.

[bennibbelink]

After some research I think I'm in support of the third bullet by @abachma2:

We can have the website link to the file on Github, via the full web address, where everything renders correctly.

I haven't found a good way to make the link formatting work well in both Github and Sphinx contexts. We have a good way to link to an external reference (Github in this case), so I my suggestion is that we change the references at the bottom of INSTALL.rst to point to https://github.com/cyclus/cyclus/blob/main/DEPENDENCIES.rst instead of DEPENDENCIES.rst. It's not ideal but its only for these two instances, every other reference on the website to DEPENDENCIES should render fine.

[abachma2]

I pushed that change. Is there anything else I needed to change for this to get merged?

[abachma2]

And now that I've pushed this, we could also link to page on the website: https://fuelcycle.org/user/DEPENDENCIES.html. If y'all have a preference of one over the other.

[bennibbelink]

Good point! I think referencing the page on https://fuelcycle.org would probably be better so we keep users in one place (although less robust).

[abachma2]

Updated the link to the website instead of the github file. Is this ready to be merged now?

[bennibbelink]

Looks good to me, thanks @abachma2!

[abachma2]

If this is approved @bennibbelink, can we merge it? Or do you think we need another reviewer on it?

[bennibbelink]

I saw the review from @gonuke is pending. Do you have a preference about linking to fuelcycle.org vs GitHub?

[gonuke]

Just one typo to fix - then I'm happy with it.

[abachma2]

Thanks for catching that typo @gonuke. Is this ready for merging now?

[nsryan2]

This PR closes #1713