[CI] remove doc/release-notes.md from lint-spelling.py #33968

1. 
   JeremyRubin commented at 2:44 pm on November 29, 2025: contributor

   /doc/release-notes/ is ignored, but during release branch-off, the latest release is copied to doc/release-notes.md. This means that CI runs based off of the branch off point (e.g., for backport dev) will fail CI if there are spelling errors, or if there are e.g. contributors names that resemble spelling errors (not a hypothetical example).
2. [CI] remove `doc/release-notes.md` from lint-spelling.py

   `/doc/release-notes/` is ignored, but during release branch-off, the latest release is copied to `doc/release-notes.md`. This means that CI runs based off of the branch off point (e.g., for backport dev) will fail CI if there are spelling errors, or if there are e.g. contributors names that resemble spelling errors (not a hypothetical example).

   6494713d2d
3. 
   DrahtBot commented at 2:44 pm on November 29, 2025: contributor

   The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

   Code Coverage & Benchmarks

   For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/33968.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   ACK	maflcko

   If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!–meta-tag:bot-skip–> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

4. 
   l0rinc commented at 10:27 am on November 30, 2025: contributor

   The release notes is kinda’ important to check for spelling errors - could we maybe add the exceptional contributor names to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/lint/spelling.ignore-words.txt instead?
5. 
   JeremyRubin commented at 3:13 pm on November 30, 2025: contributor

   I think it’s a separate issue – since it seems that the release (e.g., non code doc changes pre-release) is maybe not getting run through CI anyways, or else this would have been caught?
6. 
   maflcko commented at 8:13 am on December 1, 2025: member

   (not a hypothetical example).

   I tried searching for a real example in the past, but I couldn’t find one: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=%22LLM+reason+%28%E2%9C%A8+experimental%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-desc+is%3Apr+draft%3Afalse+label%3ABackport+is%3Aclosed+

   Not sure how much value there is in codespell at this point, given the LLM typo linter, so codespell could even be removed fully. It also seems fine to keep as-is and deal with true and false positives in the backport pull request, when there is need.

   Also, seems fine to exclude it, like here. No strong opinion, but lgtm ACK 6494713d2d48926066972376df44a0b6166a223a

7. 
   l0rinc commented at 8:37 am on December 1, 2025: contributor

   so codespell could even be removed fully

   It does seem to cause more problems than it’s solving, I’d vote for that instead

8. 
   maflcko commented at 8:41 am on December 1, 2025: member

   will fail CI if there are spelling errors

   I don’t think this is true either. The comment in the file literally says:

   Note: Will exit successfully regardless of spelling errors.

Contributors
JeremyRubin DrahtBot l0rinc maflcko