6.2 release notes

[jp-tosca]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Dataverse 6.2 release notes.

Which issue(s) this PR closes:

Closes #10422

[pdurbin]

I took a quick look.

[coveralls]

coverage: 20.736%. remained the same
when pulling e00f630 on 10422-62-release-notes
into d5bb0c2 on develop.

[pdurbin]

I'm exhausted from reading these extremely through release notes over and over. Good enough! Approved! Thanks, @jp-tosca! Nice emojis! 🚀 🎉

[landreev]

@jp-tosca Thank you for making the retroactive fixes to the 6.1 release note. Did you only fix the 2 things you specifically noticed, or did you copy-and-paste the complete source from the release page and back into the .md file on github?

[landreev]

@qqmyers the upgrade instruction is just saying "update these 4 metadata blocks:" now. We usually say why we are asking people to do that. Is that to resolve any potential constraint issues? Earlier in the note we seem to be going out of our way telling people that it's extremely unlikely that it's a problem in their database.
Should we add something like "we recommend that you update your metadata blocks just in case" in one or both places? And maybe "if a block update fails because of duplicate values, see the paragraph earlier in the release note on how to resolve it" in the upgrade instructions? - assuming I actually understand what's going on there.

(this is all small scale/nitpick-level stuff. so, up to you).

[qqmyers]

I think all 4 of those blocks have updates so would need to be updated, at least if used. I think the astro and bio ones just have the correction to not mark fields as controlled values when there's no associated vocab, but I think they need to be corrected to display properly given the code changes that were made. We could mention that errors in the blocks where fields were marked as controlled vocabulary without having any vocabulary values have been fixed.

[landreev]

OK, I just looked at #9983 and it focused on the missing constraints, so I assumed #9984 was just to address that.
I would maybe just say "Update the following blocks to reflect the ongoing improvements made to the handling of core metadata fields" then - unless you can suggest something better.