Add XML/YAML launch file equivalents to Tf2 tutorials

[lsy3]

Description

Add XML/YAML launch file equivalents for intermediate Tf2 tutorials.

• Add XML and YAML equivalents for all Python launch files
• Update tutorial documentation with tabbed multi-format code examples

Fixes #6006

Did you use Generative AI?

Partially - Cursor AI Assistant for generating XML/YAML launch file equivalents and tutorial rephrasing. Each generated line reviewed.

Additional Information

• Launch files are scoped to pages under Tutorials/Intermediate/Tf2/ directory
• All launch file references in the Tf2 tutorial documentation have been updated

[kscottz]

@lsy3 this is great and super helpful.

I did a 10 minute read through on this PR and I didn't see any immediate problems. However, I also did not run the launch files in question. The PR touches a lot of files but the changes are fairly repetitive. @emersonknapp if you are happy with this I am willing to do a second approval.

[kscottz]

@SuperJappie08 really appreciate your help on #6021. We would really appreciate your help on this PR too. It would be awesome if we could get these into the docs for the holidays.

[ahcorde]

@lsy3 do you have some time to address @SuperJappie08 comments ?

[lsy3]

@lsy3 do you have some time to address @SuperJappie08 comments ?

I can give it a look within the coming week!

[SuperJappie08]

I really went overboard with the comments; I'm still figuring out a nice way to review large PRs.

Any tips are greatly appreciated

[kscottz]

@SuperJappie08 great question. I think it helps to have the right perspective when reviewing. I've written out my sorta philosophy below.

When it comes to community contributions you shouldn't be asking yourself, "Is this perfect?" you should be asking yourself, "Is this better than what we have now?" If the PR is better than we have now then we should probably merge it.

The likelihood of the contributor returning to fix the PR drops with every change you request, so you want to be judicious. I would limit big change requests on the part of the author to the things that are absolutely critical (i.e. stuff that's actually broken and requires a big fix). For everything else I try to use the "suggest changes" features. By the time you go back and forth on requesting a change, having the author add it, and then reviewing it again you probably wasted a lot more time than having just suggested a change. I also think this feature is helpful because it sorta signals your expectations without forcing the author to spend more time actually implementing them. In my mind it makes the PR review process a bit less oppositional and much more conversant because you are helping the author get their work merged.