Release notes `v0.25.0`

[rmoyard]

Description of the Change:

Start working on the release notes before release candidate branch is created.

Release notes

• [x] Create sections
• [x] Organize the order of entries
• [x] Shorten the examples
• [x] Check that the examples execute correctly
• [x] All PRs in the changelog?
• [x] Double-check the contributors in the list (+ code reviewers)

[github-actions[bot]]

Hello. You may have forgotten to update the changelog! Please edit doc/releases/changelog-dev.md with:

• A one-to-two sentence description of the change. You may include a small working example for new features.
• A link back to this PR.
• Your name (or GitHub username) in the contributors section.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (v0.25.0-rc0@ce50259). Click here to learn what that means. The diff coverage is n/a.

@@              Coverage Diff               @@
##             v0.25.0-rc0    #2902   +/-   ##
==============================================
  Coverage               ?   99.64%           
==============================================
  Files                  ?      260           
  Lines                  ?    21939           
  Branches               ?        0           
==============================================
  Hits                   ?    21862           
  Misses                 ?       77           
  Partials               ?        0           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[isaacdevlugt]

Overall, is there an explicit benefit to this new return type? I'm just trying to think from a user perspective how this is useful at all given that we already support multiple measurement types. Why would I use this over what's already in PL?

[rmoyard]

Overall, is there an explicit benefit to this new return type? I'm just trying to think from a user perspective how this is useful at all given that we already support multiple measurement types. Why would I use this over what's already in PL?

It removes ragged tensors and it is much more clear. Try the example without enabling the return type and you will see the difference between the two system. The current one concatenate all results in one array, the new system preserves the sequence structure of the return.

[isaacdevlugt]

Overall, is there an explicit benefit to this new return type? I'm just trying to think from a user perspective how this is useful at all given that we already support multiple measurement types. Why would I use this over what's already in PL?

It removes ragged tensors and it is much more clear. Try the example without enabling the return type and you will see the difference between the two system. The current one concatenate all results in one array, the new system preserves the sequence structure of the return.

Thanks Romain that clears a lot up! I'll figure out a way to make this feature more appealing based on what you said 🙌

[Jaybsoni]

Just need to add a few example code snippets and then it should be good to review

[rmoyard]

I double checked the PRs and the names from the Githubb history.