🔧 MAINTAIN: Improve repo configuration

[chrisjsewell]

• Move config to setup.cfg and pyproject.toml
• Add Manifest.in, tox.ini
• Replace requirements.txt/dev-requirements.txt with requirements.lock
• Split dev extra to dev & examples
• Move from yapf to black code formatting
• Add more pre-commit hooks
• Update pylint version and fix new failures
• Drop python 3.6

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #112 (34dd190) into develop (a2561a4) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is 100.00%.

:exclamation: Current head 34dd190 differs from pull request most recent head a92c695. Consider uploading reports for the commit a92c695 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop      #112   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            7         7           
  Lines         1541      1544    +3     
=========================================
+ Hits          1541      1544    +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
disk_objectstore/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
disk_objectstore/container.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
disk_objectstore/examples/example_objectstore.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
disk_objectstore/examples/profile_zeros.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
disk_objectstore/models.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
disk_objectstore/utils.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update a2561a4...a92c695. Read the comment docs.

[chrisjsewell]

One general question I still have is why we are changing yapf to black in this repo.

Oh they will all be getting changed: yapf was picked for whatever reason historically, but now black is easily the de facto standard; https://python.libhunt.com/compare-yapf-vs-black (and from a technical standpoint, I can tell you the way black parses the code is a lot more sound)