Rename m to mount, but keep signature

[stephendolan]

Background and context

• Initial implementation was named mount, and had a signature of: mount MyComponent.new(name: "Test")
• Rename of mount -> m occurred, which also changed the method signature to: m MyComponent, name: "Test"
• Rename m to mount, but keep signature #1221 opened after several issue discussions about which direction to take, deciding to revert the rename but maintain the new signature.

Purpose

This PR renames m -> mount, retains the method signature as-is, and removes the old signature completely.

Closes #1221

Description

I believe I caught everything necessary. I used the regular expressions \bm[\s(]+[A-Z] to locate the items that needed to be changed. The only things I'd call out that need explicit review:

• I wasn't sure how to handle the old signature. Do we want deprecation of m, mount with the old signature, or do we just revert to mount with the new signature to get any confusion sorted during the next version bump?
• I wasn't sure whether updating the UPGRADE.md file was allowed, but it seemed prudent to let anyone migrating from 0.22 -> 0.23 know that they don't really need to rename mount -> m.

Checklist

• - An issue already exists detailing the issue/or feature request that this PR fixes
• - All specs are formatted with crystal tool format spec src
• - Inline documentation has been added and/or updated
• - Lucky builds on docker with ./script/setup
• - All builds and specs pass on docker with ./script/test

[paulcsmith]

A couple small suggestions. Thanks for the PR @stephendolan!

[jkthorne]

should we keep the m alias?

[stephendolan]

@wontruefree ,

There have been a couple issue/PR comment threads that I've read through. I was going by the comment @paulcsmith left here: #1049 (comment)

I think the idea is that we don't want multiple ways to mount components since m is hard to search for, and may not intuitively be linked to mount. The option I read for handling a shorter mount call would be to implement an alias in your application.

[stephendolan]

@paulcsmith Added back the UPGRADE_NOTES that I removed, but left the note that we reverted it. If you don't mind running through src/lucky/mount_component.cr one last time to make sure I added those deprecations correctly, I'd appreciate it!

Tests are all passing, though, so this should be good to merge!

[paulcsmith]

Looks great!