ci(danger): disable Danger check

[Flash0ver]

Now with #4818, which should automatically generate CHANGELOG entries on release (via the PR title or a section in the PR description, we want to disable the changelog-validation of our danger action / workflow.

For example, #4899 still asks us to Please consider adding a changelog entry for the next release..
Also, we had to still manually update the CHANGELOG: see getsentry/publish#7429

For that, we need to update the Danger Composite Action.

This PR temporarily disabled the Danger workflow.

[github-actions]

Semver Impact of This PR

⚪ None (no version bump detected)

📋 Changelog Preview

This is how your changes will appear in the changelog.
Entries from this PR are highlighted with a left border (blockquote style).

---

This PR will not appear in the changelog.

---

_{🤖 This preview updates automatically when you update the PR.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 73.94%. Comparing base (bfe5319) to head (ef4e51b).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4910      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.92%   73.94%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         497      497              
  Lines       17974    17974              
  Branches     3517     3517              
==========================================
+ Hits        13287    13291       +4     
+ Misses       3832     3825       -7     
- Partials      855      858       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[jamescrosswell]

It doesn't look like there's any way to configure the danger action to skip the changelog check.

They don't appear to be using this workflow at all in the Python repository. I think we need to remove it.

The only question then is if we can recreate some of the checks that were actually valuable from that workflow. 3 of these 4 checks are probably still useful.

We could copy this action into our own repo so that we could use our own dangerfile.js... which would also be 99% copied from here. That seems kinda daft though. Ideally we would tweak the original action so that it accepted another parameter (skip-changelog-check or something like that) which it could pass to the danger check here. I'm not sure if that's possible... would need to investigate the docs for danger.