Drop AppVeyor in favor of GitHub Actions

[Romfos]

Changes:

• Added release flow
• Drop appveyor
• Hotfix Explicit.NuGet.Versions
• Added Support Sourcelink and Deterministic Build (Support Sourcelink and Deterministic Build #669)
• Update some github actions steps versions

How to use:

If you want to publish directly to nuget owner of this repo should set NUGET_API_KEY to the repo secrets and check "publish to nuget" during release build

[Romfos]

Maybe someone know - what is "Castle.Core.Tests.WeakNamed"? What is the purpose of that?

cc @stakx

[stakx]

Sorry, I currently don't have sufficient capacity to look into migrating away from Appveyor if I also want to look at actually improving DynamicProxy. I'd rather spend some of my time there at the moment.

Getting rid of Appveyor will be a good thing... but hopefully it can wait a little longer.

Leaving this PR open to be reviewed at a later time (or by someone else).

Maybe someone know - what is "Castle.Core.Tests.WeakNamed"? What is the purpose of that?

DynamicProxy has to be able to deal with types both from strong-named ("signed") and non-strong-named ("unsigned") assemblies. Depending on whether a type to be proxied comes from one or the other, DynamicProxy needs to do slightly different things. Therefore we need both strong-named and non-strong-named assemblies in our test suite to cover all those cases. The Castle.Core.Tests.WeakNamed project targets the latter.

[Romfos]

sad. As I See appveyor image doesn't have .NET 10 for now., This is blocked for this

[stakx]

appveyor image doesn't have .NET 10 for now., This is blocked for this

@Romfos, note that the .NET 10 SDK can be installed before the AppVeyor CI run commences: 4f624b0. (Relevant AppVeyor documentation for that is here.) The tradeoff being that the AppVeyor builds become even slower.

(To be honest, I'm getting around to your point of view: it'll be good to be rid of it ASAP. That being said, see my comment in #699 (comment). Let's probably do this for the next release after 6.0.0.)

[Romfos]

ok, rebased

cc @jonorossi

[stakx]

FYI, I've also contacted jonorossi regarding the NuGet API key in GitHub Actions config. Let's proceed once that is set up.

[stakx]

@Romfos, I'm marking this PR as a "draft" to prevent accidental merging. I want to make sure the NuGet publishing is fully set up before this lands on master. But I'm still on board with this!