Update README.md to include Packwerk Retrospective article

[caffeinefriend]

Sid Sijbrandij sends his regards.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Adding a link to the README - https://shopify.engineering/a-packwerk-retrospective

What approach did you choose and why?

Concise

What should reviewers focus on?

Would you like this link to live in a new section called 'Related Documentation'? That made the most sense to me. :)

Type of Change

• [ ] Bugfix
• [ ] New feature
• [x] Non-breaking change (a change that doesn't alter functionality - i.e., code refactor, configs, etc.)

Additional Release Notes

• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Include any notes here to include in the release description. For example, if you selected "breaking change" above, leave notes on how users can transition to this version.

If no additional notes are necessary, delete this section or leave it unchanged.

Checklist

• [x] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• [ ] I have added tests to cover my changes.
• [x] It is safe to rollback this change.

[caffeinefriend]

Happy to contribute @gmcgibbon (Also Sid asked me to 🙂).

Can you help me understand how to sign the CLA for you? : https://github.com/Shopify/packwerk/blob/main/.github/workflows/cla.yml

[exterm]

mmmh, should this section then include all shopify-published material related to packwerk?

https://shopify.engineering/enforcing-modularity-rails-apps-packwerk for example?

If this is about background information, it probably then should also include the two blog posts on Componentization?

🤷🏼

[gmcgibbon]

@caffeinefriend If you click on the details for the CLA check failure it tells you how to sign.

[caffeinefriend]

CLA signed ✅

[caffeinefriend]

I have signed the CLA!

[rafaelfranca]

Thank you for the pull request. I don't think we need to link to external article in the README. Those articles get old and change and might no reflect what the tooling is anymore.