Revisit the ACA deployment docs to optimize the workflow and content

[alexwolfmsft]

The ACA deployment docs currently show an extensive number of steps for Bicep and the CLI. Investigate how to restructure this into multiple docs in the deployment node for each .NET Aspire deployment experience.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/aspire/deployment/azure/aca-deployment?tabs=visual-studio%2Cinstall-az-windows%2Cpowershell&pivots=azure-bicep

Potential structure could be as follows:

Deploy to ACA (expandable node)

• [x] Deploy using the Azure Developer CLI
• [x] Deploy using Visual Studio
• [x] Make sure the 2 CI/CD articles are up-to-date (GitHub Actions and AzDO Pipelines)
• [ ] Customize deployments with azd infra synth (not under ACA specifically). Include production considerations for this.
• [ ] Potentially a new doc or refactoring the "in-depth" deployment tutorial to focus more on the inner workings of azd + aspire
• [ ] ~Deploy using Azure CLI (short doc just referencing a sample script/project on GitHub + a few concepts)~
• [ ] ~Deploy using Bicep (short doc just referencing a sample script/project on GitHub + a few concepts)~

My main concern here is just the number of docs - we could potentially combine Azure CLI and Bicep into a "Manual deployment" article of some sort since those are so many steps and include Azure CLI, Bicep and potentially other examples in that.

[alexwolfmsft]

@bradygaster and @IEvangelist I've restructured this issues to represent our earlier discussion, feel free to update as needed.

[IEvangelist]

What's the difference between the "Deploy to ACA" and "Deploy using GitHub Actions", are those the same thing, except for one encapsulates the commands into a workflow? It might be better to include a section in the Deploy to ACA article that says something about "CI/CD Considerations" with a blurb and an example workflow. Less content is better, and it's really the same thing, just from a different environment, right?