docs: update README to use PEP 735 dependency-groups syntax

[by22Jy]

Update example in README to use the new [dependency-groups] table syntax instead of Poetry-specific [tool.poetry.group.*] format, as Poetry 2.2.0 now supports PEP 735.

Closes #10548

Summary by Sourcery

Documentation:

• Revise README dependency group example to use the standard [dependency-groups] table instead of Poetry-specific [tool.poetry.group.*] configuration.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)

Reviewer's Guide

Updates the README example to use the standardized PEP 735 [dependency-groups] syntax instead of the older Poetry-specific [tool.poetry.group.*] configuration, keeping the documentation aligned with Poetry 2.2.0 behavior.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Update README dependency group example to PEP 735 [dependency-groups] syntax.	Replace [tool.poetry.group.dev.dependencies] example with a [dependency-groups] table showing a dev group using inline dependency specifications. Introduce a docs dependency group in the [dependency-groups] example with sphinx specified using the new syntax. Remove the old [tool.poetry.group.docs] and [tool.poetry.group.docs.dependencies] example blocks and associated optional flag, relying instead on the new dependency-groups representation while keeping the surrounding installation explanation text intact.	README.md

Assessment against linked issues

Issue	Objective	Addressed	Explanation
#10548	Update the README.md example(s) that currently show [tool.poetry.group.*.dependencies] to instead use PEP 735-style [dependency-groups] syntax wherever applicable.	✅

Possibly linked issues

• Showing dependency-groups in README #10548: PR exactly implements the issue request by updating README examples to use PEP 735 [dependency-groups] syntax.

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[dimbleby]

Why is this better, or worse, than #10728?

Why have you raised a series of pull requests duplicating already open pull requests?

[by22Jy]

Hi @dimbleby, thank you for pointing this out!

I apologize for the duplicate PR - I am relatively new to open source contribution and did not notice the existing PR #10728 when I submitted mine.

Looking at both PRs, they seem to address the same issue (#10548) with similar changes. I will close this PR in favor of #10728 to avoid duplication.

Thank you for your patience and for helping me learn the proper contribution workflow!