chore: rename workspace dirs to packages/${package-base-name} (extreme edition)

[trentm]

This PR is the final take of the plan discussed at #2223.
This implements option 3 of #2223 (comment)
(i.e. the "extreme" option).

Before this change the packages published from this repo were spread
across these workspace dirs:

"packages/*",
"plugins/node/*",
"plugins/web/*",
"propagators/*",
"detectors/node/*",
"metapackages/*"

with the directory name usually matching the npm package name, and
with or without a leading "opentelemetry-". This PR normalizes all dirs
to be under "packages/*" and to have the base dir match the package
name (excluding the npm @opentelemetry/ org prefix).

Obsoletes: #2223
Obsoletes: #2920

[github-actions]

This package does not have an assigned component owner and is considered unmaintained. As such this package is in feature-freeze and this PR will be closed with 14 days unless a new owner or a sponsor (a member of @open-telemetry/javascript-approvers) for the feature is found. It is the responsibility of the author to find a sponsor for this feature.
Are you familiar with this package? Consider becoming a component owner.

[david-luna]

Thanks for working on this :)

[david-luna]

Strange that some packages have a change in this file but others, like this one, appears as a new file when it already existed in the previous location.

[trentm]

I'm guessing that may be due to there being a number of "tsconfig.json" files with the same (or mostly similar) content that git couldn't reasonably disambiguate which file moved to where, so it gives up and just categorizes them as independent "deletes" and "creates".

[david-luna]

nit: now that the plugins folder is gone I wonder if we should keep the word in the keywords list. Also there is such word in some instrumentations. I think we could be more specific in the keywords section of each package. I can create an issue with a proposal and discuss it in the next SIG meeting

[pichlermarc]

now that the plugins folder is gone I wonder if we should keep the word in the keywords list. Also there is such word in some instrumentations.

Yep, the plugin label can be removed for sure - it was the name for instrumentation from way back in the day.

I think we could be more specific in the keywords section of each package. I can create an issue with a proposal and discuss it in the next SIG meeting

Agree, there's the profiling keyword everywhere. A proposal to clean this up would be appreciated. :)