Update CHANGES.rst to reflect v0.10.0 release

[jaymedina]

Update CHANGES.rst to reflect v0.10.0 release

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.53%. Comparing base (443a9b9) to head (68e7301).
Report is 33 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 68e7301 differs from pull request most recent head 46ece7b

Please upload reports for the commit 46ece7b to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #109   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.53%   94.53%           
=======================================
  Files           8        8           
  Lines        1446     1446           
=======================================
  Hits         1367     1367           
  Misses         79       79           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[falkben]

woops. we should prob. get in the habit of adding to the changelog in our PR's

[falkben]

I think for a few of these, with these two lines especially so, we could probably add a bit more info in the changelog, or just remove them if we don't think it's important enough to include in the changelog. Minor typos fixed in the readme probably aren't worth including in the changelog?

[jaymedina]

woops. we should prob. get in the habit of adding to the changelog in our PR's

No need for habits! I'm adding a GH actions job that fails when changelog entries aren't added: #110

The current template is from astroquery and I will modify accordingly when I have some time.

[snbianco]

@dr-rodriguez

I realized that we should probably update CHANGELOG.rst for the new release, but it looks like the changes for 0.10.0 were never merged in. Should I continue on this branch/PR? Or is actually making the release the top priority?

[dr-rodriguez]

Interesting. We can probably merge this, maybe flagging 0.11 as unreleased and then updating that when we're good to go. I think the description in this document is useful so I wouldn't want to loose what Jenny had written before.