(WIP) added makefile

[jaredsnyder]

Fixes #230 by adding a makefile

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

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

Project coverage is 83.16%. Comparing base (5e723ef) to head (14ef099).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #234 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 83.16% 83.16% ======================================= Files 16 16 Lines 1194 1194 ======================================= Hits 993 993 Misses 201 201 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/mozilla/mozanalysis/pull/234/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mozilla) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [project](https://app.codecov.io/gh/mozilla/mozanalysis/pull/234/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mozilla) | `83.16% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mozilla#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[mikewilli]

So this is valid and we could certainly use it, but given that the commands are so simple, it doesn't seem worth adding a new tool into the workflow at this point. Worth re-evaluating if any of the workflows get more complicated, or if we did something like incorporate docker.