Improve and clean-up edx-platform constraints file

[robrap]

Some suggestions based on openedx/open-edx-proposals#332, which hasn't been completed yet.

Here is what we might do for each constraint:

• Add the date the constraint was added to see at-a-glance how old certain pins are.
• Add headers like "Date:", "Description:", and "Ticket:" to make the format more official, and easier to duplicate.
• Add a link to a github issue for unpinning each constraint.
  • Create tickets as-needed.
  • Add details to ticket to allow constraint description to be brief.
  • Exceptions, like edx-enterprise, might use something like Ticket: N/A (Updated as needed.)
• Alphabetically sort constraints. We used to do this. It makes them simpler to find, and makes it less likely we'll have duplicate constraints. Related constraints can use the same ticket or the description can refer to another constraint.
• Ensure a new line before/after each separate constraint. This is mostly complete.

Here is an example of an updated constraint.

# Date: 2023-05-11
# Description: urllib3>=2.0.0 conflicts with elastic search && snowflake-connector-python packages
# which require urllib3<2 for now.
# Ticket: https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/issues/32222
urllib3<2.0.0

Also, update the help text at the top to make these guidelines more clear. See https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/blob/master/requirements/constraints.txt#L6-L9

Finally, based on how this goes, we could either ticket or just update https://github.com/openedx/edx-lint/blob/master/edx_lint/files/common_constraints.txt.

[robrap]

@jristau1984: Could arbi-bom take this on at some point? I think it would help them as much as everyone else. Thanks.

[jristau1984]

I have added this to the Arbi-BOM project, and am removing it from Arch-BOM.

[jristau1984]

@huniafatima-arbi please make sure that links to the created issues are added as comments in the constraints file, for future reference. Thanks for picking this up!

[robrap]

[inform] This is great. I did add a couple of comments: #35601 (review)