#2503 push SNAPSHOT Maven artifacts to github Packages

[icrc-fdeniger]

Fixes #2503

Description
Publish Maven artifacts in GitHub Packages

Type
Feature

Checklist

• Tests done https://github.com/icrc-fdeniger/android-fhir
• Maven packages are deployed here: https://github.com/icrc-fdeniger?tab=packages&repo_name=android-fhir ( will be done on google/android-fhir)
• maven-repository.zip artifact is deployed as usual ( not sure about the usage of this artifact but not changes).
• See https://github.com/icrc-fdeniger/android-fhir/actions/runs/8798380904/job/24145256498 for a full deployment

Versions

• When the maven artifacts are deployed in GitHub Packages the SNAPSHOT prefix is used to follow Maven coventions.
• When the maven artifacts are deployed in official maven repositories, the SNAPSHOT prefix is not used ( as it's done actually as far as I can understand)
• In the PR, the artifact versions has been updated to next expected release version:
  • for instance, commonmodule will be automatically deployed with the version 0.1.0-alpha06-SNAPSHOT in GitHub Packages and with 0.1.0-alpha06 in the next release.

Suggestion/question
why not removeing beta/alpha as versions like 0.X.Y are considered as development version ?

Current Version	Used in this PR	Proposition
common:0.1.0-alpha05	common:0.1.0-alpha06	common:0.1.1
engine:1.0.0	engine:1.0.1	engine:1.0.1
data-capture:1.1.0	data-capture:1.1.1	data-capture:1.1.1
workflow:0.1.0-alpha04	workflow:0.1.0-alpha05	workflow:0.1.1
ontrib-barcode:0.1.0-beta3	ontrib-barcode:0.1.0-beta4	ontrib-barcode:0.1.1
contrib-locationwidget:0.1.0-alpha01	contrib-locationwidget:0.1.0-alpha02	contrib-locationwidget:0.1.1
knowledge:0.1.0-alpha03	knowledge:0.1.0-alpha04	knowledge:0.1.1

if a dev Team wants to use an alpha/beta version it can use a dependency to a SNAPSHOT version ( the "unstable version created from the last build").
it's also possible to specify the artifact of a build with by example: engine-1.0.1-20240423.083712-3

[vorburger]

LGTM, based on an initial quick glance... but a "core team" member and not just me should probably also rewiew this PR.

[icrc-fdeniger]

Hello @santosh-pingle, @ktarasenko
please tell me if this PR need to be modified. I understand that the version updates are the "tricky" part and will be happy to modify this. My point was to update them to the next version as GitHub Actions should produce SNAPSHOT of next versions.

Thanks

[vorburger]

@icrc-fdeniger FYI the artifact version number changes introduced here will cause build failures once you rebase this after #2533 is merged. The required fix (after you have rebased it, not right now) is as simple as changing those version numbers also in the (new, TBD) docs/use/api.md file; hopefully that's trivial. Please do shout if unclear!

@MJ1998 @santosh-pingle @ktarasenko merge this only after #2533.

[icrc-fdeniger]

@vorburger @santosh-pingle @ktarasenko should be ok now

[vorburger]

@vorburger @santosh-pingle @ktarasenko should be ok now

LGTM! I say let's merge this... @santosh-pingle @ktarasenko @MJ1998 no objects, right?

[MJ1998]

LGTM but requesting @aditya-07 to approve.

[MJ1998]

Thanks for this PR @icrc-fdeniger. LGTM.

About the version proposal we would wanna keep the alpha/beta naming conventions. Reason - Using alpha and beta suffixes aligns with established conventions in semantic versioning and open-source software development. So we would like to stick with it.

[MJ1998]

LGTM