Improve generation of "Status of testing" issue

[potiuk]

This PR improves/simplifies the process of issue generation when provider package rc candidates are prepared for voting.

It improves the commmand to generate the issue and makes it simpler (less copy&paste) to create such issue, the issue also does not use the "Meta" template and gets the right labels assigned automatically.

Recent changes that automatically derive the suffix from PyPI packages prepared, removed the need of passing --suffix as parameter. In all cases the right rc* suffix will be automatically added during issue generation based on the version of package being prepared. The process has been updated and command simplified by removing the --suffix flag.

When the issue is prepared, we display the issue in terminal and asked the release manager to create the issue by copy&pasting the issue content and title to a new issue, but that required a few copy&pastes and opening new Issue via "Meta" task type. This PR simplifies it a bit by not only displaying the content but also generating a URL that can be either copy&pasted to browser URL field or just Cmd+clicked if your terminal allows that. Issue created this way does not have the "Body" field header and has the labels properly assigned including a dedicated "testing status" label that is used to gether stats for past "status" issues.

The advice for release manager has been improved (the comment generated had some missing end of sentence and it should be now clearer on how to iterate during issue generation if you want to remove some PRs from the generated issue content.

---

^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

[eladkal]

BTW we seems to have some differences between issue generation of providers and of core. In core it also generates the issue with link to the PR (calling for testing to both issue author and PR author) while in providers it brings only PRs.
I wanted to fix it but didn't find time yet

[amoghrajesh]

Looks good, I have a few nits @potiuk

[potiuk]

BTW we seems to have some differences between issue generation of providers and of core. In core it also generates the issue with link to the PR (calling for testing to both issue author and PR author) while in providers it brings only PRs.
I wanted to fix it but didn't find time yet

Yep. I planned to "commonalize" the two as well as one of the next steps. Let's see who will be first :)