chore: from mdspell to codespell #15149

[gianarb]

Related #15149

Motivation

mdspell is a bit too strict let's explore an alternative. I see
codespell has a good amount of starts and it looks maintained.

Modifications

Replace mdsell with codespell in Makefile

Verification

CI should be happy

[Joibel]

Whilst I wouldn't mind using codespell for the code, it's not really suitable for checking documentation, it's not a spell checker in the traditional sense.

I quite liked the idea of using vale, but it might be difficult or too draconian on style until we'd updated all the docs to match kubernetes style. I don't have a correct answer here.

We'd also need to delete the .spelling file if we merged this PR.

[Joibel]

Should also remove these lines.

[Joibel]

No need for duplicate lines here, just put the dependencies on the same line as the target.

[gianarb]

Whilst I wouldn't mind using codespell for the code, it's not really suitable for checking documentation, it's not a spell checker in the traditional sense.

Makes sense, I didn't expect this to be the right approach, but it is a way to start the conversation.

The issue targets new-features.md and not the entire doc, so what I can do is to keep new-features.md out from mdspell check and figure out a different one for it?

Or I can add the words that mdspell complains about into the .spelling files so it will start to work again for it. Then I will add mdspell check for the various features make targets similar to what I did for the #15165 )

I think the last solution is the easiest and does not require new tooling. What do you prefer?

[Joibel]

Whilst I wouldn't mind using codespell for the code, it's not really suitable for checking documentation, it's not a spell checker in the traditional sense.

Makes sense, I didn't expect this to be the right approach, but it is a way to start the conversation.

The issue targets new-features.md and not the entire doc, so what I can do is to keep new-features.md out from mdspell check and figure out a different one for it?

Or I can add the words that mdspell complains about into the .spelling files so it will start to work again for it. Then I will add mdspell check for the various features make targets similar to what I did for the #15165 )

I think the last solution is the easiest and does not require new tooling. What do you prefer?

Ok, lets spell check the individual features and we can switch to a better spelling tool another time then. I'd prefer fixes to the feature files over lots and lots of new words in .spelling