Matthew Feickert

(This rebase was just to clean up the PR into more cohrerent commits that should make the logic easier to review in chunks. Nothing was changed from when I last...

> Do you have any feelings on the motivations to use a re-usable workflow vs just adding a new job that is opt-in? @agoose77 In my mind the advantage is...

> AFAICT we don't need duplicate logic; the singular build-wheels workflow could have all of cron, release, and workflow_dispatch triggers, with a "push to pypi" job that only runs on...

@agoose77 @jpivarski While this isn't critical (aka, gentle nudge that you should ignore for other pressing work), can we revisit this PR this week?

> So, three workflows all want to build wheels, deploy-cpp.yml, packaging-test.yml, and upload-nightly-wheels.yml, and previously, upload-nightly-wheels.yml called packaging-test.yml to do that. Only one workflows wants to build _all_ the wheels:...

Self note: - [x] This PR needs to be rebased once PR https://github.com/scikit-hep/awkward/pull/3031 and https://github.com/scikit-hep/awkward/pull/3032 goes in.

@jpivarski @agoose77 gentle ping on this so that the full suite of `awkard-cpp` and `awkward` nightly wheels can start getting uploaded to https://anaconda.org/scientific-python-nightly-wheels .

Thanks for your reviews @agoose77 and @jpivarski! If there are questions in the future I am more than happy to help address them or to help fix anything. :+1:

Yes please! :)

> Is it important we follow the exact same format? Do people read this programmatically? Hm, good question. Problably not required to have the _exact_ same output, but I think...