[enhancement] change versioning format for local builds

[icfaust]

Description

Follow-on to #2409 which will switch how we write the version for local/prototype builds (which will solve this code comment): https://github.com/uxlfoundation/scikit-learn-intelex/pull/2409#discussion_r2031903471

It will use subprocess to call git to yield the short form of the commit. If sklearnex is not built in a repo (which users can download the source code without git via a .zip file), then it must still function, so a try catch is added on the case of failure when the subprocess fails, and will revert to the hour time second format.

A + is used instead of a . upon request.

Please see public CI for verification.

---

PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed. This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.

You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way. For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).

Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:

PR completeness and readability

• [ ] I have reviewed my changes thoroughly before submitting this pull request.
• [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• [ ] I have updated the documentation to reflect the changes or created a separate PR with update and provided its number in the description, if necessary.
• [ ] Git commit message contains an appropriate signed-off-by string (see CONTRIBUTING.md for details).
• [ ] I have added a respective label(s) to PR if I have a permission for that.
• [ ] I have resolved any merge conflicts that might occur with the base branch.

Testing

• [ ] I have run it locally and tested the changes extensively.
• [ ] All CI jobs are green or I have provided justification why they aren't.
• [ ] I have extended testing suite if new functionality was introduced in this PR.

Performance

• [ ] I have measured performance for affected algorithms using scikit-learn_bench and provided at least summary table with measured data, if performance change is expected.
• [ ] I have provided justification why performance has changed or why changes are not expected.
• [ ] I have provided justification why quality metrics have changed or why changes are not expected.
• [ ] I have extended benchmarking suite and provided corresponding scikit-learn_bench PR if new measurable functionality was introduced in this PR.

[david-cortes-intel]

@icfaust Could this perhaps try to detect if it is being built from a release branch?

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Flag	Coverage Δ
github	72.00% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.