Split each example into its own Github action

[BetsyMcPhail]

Towards #61

This change is 

[BetsyMcPhail]

+@nicolecheetham for review please. I'm happy to take suggestions for job names that would be more clear.

Reviewable status: all discussions resolved, LGTM missing from assignee nicolecheetham, platform LGTM missing (waiting on @nicolecheetham)

[nicolecheetham]

Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, LGTM missing from assignee nicolecheetham, platform LGTM missing (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)

---

-- commits line 2 at r1:
I agree. The job names could be clearer. One suggestion is to move the job names after "ubuntu 22.04 jammy". This would help people see what OS is running for each job. Additionally, all prefix instances of "drake" can be removed in the name sections of the GHA. This is for DEE so it's already acknowledged that it will be used for drake. You could further remove instances of "download/installed" in the name sections. Though with this change, one would just need to properly distinguish the Jenkinsfile jobs with {cmake,bazel}_external. I think these changes can make the names more manageable and easier to read. I hope these suggestions helped. Besides the name clarity, the PR looks good

[BetsyMcPhail]

Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, LGTM missing from assignee nicolecheetham, platform LGTM missing (waiting on @nicolecheetham)

---

-- commits line 2 at r1:

Previously, nicolecheetham (Nicole C.) wrote…

I agree. The job names could be clearer. One suggestion is to move the job names after "ubuntu 22.04 jammy". This would help people see what OS is running for each job. Additionally, all prefix instances of "drake" can be removed in the name sections of the GHA. This is for DEE so it's already acknowledged that it will be used for drake. You could further remove instances of "download/installed" in the name sections. Though with this change, one would just need to properly distinguish the Jenkinsfile jobs with {cmake,bazel}_external. I think these changes can make the names more manageable and easier to read. I hope these suggestions helped. Besides the name clarity, the PR looks good

Thanks for the suggestions. It seems better now, I'm trying to be concise while still making it obvious which example is being tested.

[nicolecheetham]

Reviewable status: all discussions resolved, platform LGTM missing

[BetsyMcPhail]

+@jwnimmer-tri for platform review please

Reviewable status: all discussions resolved, LGTM missing from assignee jwnimmer-tri, platform LGTM missing (waiting on @jwnimmer-tri and @nicolecheetham)

[jwnimmer-tri]

moving in the right direction. Just a couple of consistency nits to tidy up.

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 3 unresolved discussions, platform LGTM from [jwnimmer-tri] (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail and @nicolecheetham)

---

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 20 at r2 (raw file):

  cancel-in-progress: true
jobs:
  macos_sonoma_arm:

nit This identifier should receive the same treatment as the rest of this PR -- adding the detail of which example it's running (in this case, macos_sonoma_arm_cmake_installed).

---

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 76 at r2 (raw file):

        shell: zsh -efuo pipefail {0}
  ros_humble:
    name: ros 2 humble

nit Both this identifier on the prior line and this name should receive the same treatment (adding the detail of which example it's running)

---

.github/workflows/ci.yml line 128 at r2 (raw file):

        shell: bash
  ubuntu_jammy_apt:
    name: ubuntu 22.04 jammy apt

nit Both this identifier on the prior line and this name should receive the same treatment (adding the detail of which example it's running)

[jwnimmer-tri]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all discussions resolved, platform LGTM from [jwnimmer-tri] (waiting on @BetsyMcPhail)