Add options for marking something as replaced

[NickDJM]

Motivation

When architecting client sites, we find we end up changing machine names of some fields from D7 to D11. It would be nice to have a column in the bundles, fields, menus, etc. sheets where we could:

1. Identify easily that an entry is being replaced and will not be migrated as-is, and
2. Quickly see what an entry is being replaced with.

Proposed solution

We have taken to making a couple changes to our spreadsheet to facilitate this:

1. We add a new "r" option to the implementation statuses to indicate "Replaced by new implementation"
2. We add a new column called "Replaced by", which references all of the machine names in a sheet where you can easily select the new field/entity something is being replaced with.

Additional context

Here are a couple screenshots of what we do

[TravisCarden]

Okay, help me understand the reasoning, @NickDJM. I think the way I would've handled this would have been to simply mark the row "c" for "Changed since Implemented" and added a comment to the "Machine name" cell if I thought clarification was necessary. It's not very sophisticated, but I try to minimize structural complexity. What does your approach offer that what I described doesn't? What effects does it have on the rest of the tool, including query columns?

[NickDJM]

Our main scenario for needing this is clarification between something that we're changing before the build a site, and after.

We use "r" to mark something that we are replacing on a machine-name-level (or entity level like changing a node type to a paragraph type or something) from Drupal 7 to Drupal 11, where as "c" would be used once we have a new site up and running and need to make changes to something we already implemented.

We often have our lead dev/PM spec out the sheet with D7 to D11 information, and then other developers are free to begin implementation. The distinction helps everyone stay on the same page (especially when writing migrations).

I suppose at this point the "c" vs "r" is semantics, but it helps clarify.

[NickDJM]

The queries seem to be fine, but they don't really complain if there are duplicates in there.

There's definite an inflation of content types/fields in the summary- which makes sense since a lot of stuff ends up being duplicated with replacement types/fields.