Add deprecation warning

[TheAndrewJackson]

Purpose

Add a deprecation warning to let users know that the Fidesops repo is no longer being developed and lets them know where to go instead. Currently it only logs the warning on startup but the warning could logged more frequent if desired.

Changes

• Add deprecation warning

Checklist

• Update CHANGELOG.md file
  • Merge in main so the most recent CHANGELOG.md file is being appended to
  • Add description within the Unreleased section in an appropriate category. Add a new category from the list at the top of the file if the needed one isn't already there.
  • Add a link to this PR at the end of the description with the PR number as the text. example: #1
• Applicable documentation updated (guides, quickstart, postman collections, tutorial, fidesdemo, database diagram.
• If docs updated (select one):
  • documentation complete, or draft/outline provided (tag docs-team to complete/review on this branch)
  • documentation issue created (tag docs-team to complete issue separately)
• Good unit test/integration test coverage
• This PR contains a DB migration. If checked, the reviewer should confirm with the author that the down_revision correctly references the previous migration before merging
• The Run Unsafe PR Checks label has been applied, and checks have passed, if this PR touches any external services

Ticket

Fixes #1422

[TheAndrewJackson]

The current warning message wording is mainly here to serve as a starting point. Do you either @seanpreston or @ThomasLaPiana any specific wording you'd prefer over what is currently there?

[ThomasLaPiana]

maybe also link to the docs site? we don't have the official migration guide up yet to link to unfortunately, but I think having links to both would be helpful

[seanpreston]

This wording works for me. Adding something to the README and docs is necessary too. @conceptualshark do you have any opinions here?

[ThomasLaPiana]

@TheAndrewJackson thanks for tackling this!

[seanpreston]

@TheAndrewJackson / @ThomasLaPiana I was thinking we might also want to label the repository too, or at least update the README and description.

[ThomasLaPiana]

@seanpreston I might be wrong here (@NevilleS can confirm) but I think we're going to private it? At least I assumed that was the ultimate goal

[NevilleS]

That'd make sense to move it to private, or archived/similar. Let's wait a month or two though, we've got other things to focus on first 👍

[TheAndrewJackson]

@NevilleS Does updating the readme and repo labels makes sense since the archival won't happen for a month or two?

[TheAndrewJackson]

@seanpreston It looks like I may not have permission to update the repo description and labels. Could you do that?