[dev pick] Add coq-lsp to dev pick.

[ejgallego]

cc #319

[MSoegtropIMC]

@ejgallego : I currently have CI issues and don't want to merge if CI doesn't run through. I will merge as soon as CI is working.

You should remove the fixes line above, because the inclusion is not done by adding it to dev - the reference is more the previous pick, and it is included if it is in the next official pick. So the issue should not be closed before this.

[ejgallego]

Thanks @MSoegtropIMC for the help! I will wait, no problem.

I'm sorry I didn't fully understand the pick process, should I open another pull request doing the pick, or it is something you folks do when preparing the release?

[ejgallego]

Hi @MSoegtropIMC , I've updated this PR, let's see how the CI works. A couple of questions:

• I put coq-lsp into the extended section, but IMHO document managers should maybe go in the base section, WDYT?
• I see coq-serapi is not documented into the readme.dev, should that be fixed?
• I guess it would make sense to add the package to the 8.17~2023.08 pick too?

[MSoegtropIMC]

There is a board which decides what goes where. In the full section only things should go which are production ready which means people can rely on that it will be available in the next release as well and that they don't have to put a high effort into adopting. For a tool the adoption effort should be negligible (a few settings) and I expect that you port it in due time to the next Coq releases, so in my opinion "full" should be fine.

[MSoegtropIMC]

The dev pick is broken, so I didn't regenerate the docs in a while.

For 8.17~2023.08 the release is likely today, so it is a bit late, but we can do a .1 if required. But since the next release will be there in a few weeks, I am not sure it is worthwhile.

[ejgallego]

Thanks for the feedback @MSoegtropIMC , a few comments:

• regarding the section, maybe a section "tools" could work? But anyways that is not so important now, we can keep extended and see later on.
• sorry to hear about the broken dev pick, my goal with this PR is to indeed be sure that everything works fine so the platform maintainers have no work to do. What do you think the best way is?

The only contraint I have for the latter item is that I'd like the windows installer to be generated, so users can test.

IMHO it is fine if we don't do a platform release for coq-lsp, I'm happy to distribute the .exe installer on the coq-lsp website unsigned for now, so poeple can test, etc...