REL: 23.0.0

[effigies]

The update_changes.sh script was a bit out of date, but otherwise this looks in decent shape.

@oesteban the API changes seem to justify a new minor release. I see in the release notes we at one point intended to switch to calver:

https://github.com/templateflow/python-client/blob/dd08432566c6acbdba20b98048606c6b054e67de/CHANGES.rst#L63

Should this be 23.0.0 instead? If you like I can update the build to use the nipreps-calver version scheme.

[mgxd]

Since we're packaging the skeleton on every release, I'm +1 for switching to calver

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Base: 85.98% // Head: 85.98% // No change to project coverage :thumbsup:

Coverage data is based on head (b53762f) compared to base (dd08432). Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

:exclamation: Current head b53762f differs from pull request most recent head e9e4b39. Consider uploading reports for the commit e9e4b39 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #105 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 85.98% 85.98% ======================================= Files 5 5 Lines 264 264 ======================================= Hits 227 227 Misses 37 37 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | api | `85.98% <ø> (ø)` | | | config | `54.16% <ø> (ø)` | | | datalad | `78.03% <ø> (ø)` | | | dls3 | `59.09% <ø> (ø)` | | | s3 | `61.74% <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=templateflow#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=templateflow). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=templateflow)

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[effigies]

@mgxd Any preference of scheme? We could just do straight calver, e.g. YY.MM.DD or YY.MM.PATCH? Or keep with YY.MINOR.PATCH to allow API change indicators?

[mgxd]

No strong preference, but since we already have nipreps-versions seems easier to just adopt YY.MINOR.PATCH