feat(config): add the includes field

[Conaclos]

Summary

Part of #4611
This PR adds the includes field.
This PR is not a breaking change because I didn't remove include and ignore.

I leave the removal of include and ignore to another PR.
I also started a migration rule and decided to leave it for another PR.

I noted a minor "caveat": when we replace ignore with includes we have to add an include pattern to ensure that some files got processed.
For example, the following config:

{
  "files": {
    "ignore": ["src"]
  }
}

Have to be rewritten as:

{
  "files": {
    "includes": ["**", "!src"]
  }
}

I think it is fine.

Test Plan

I replaced all occurrences of include and ignore by includes in the tests.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #4899 will improve performances by 7.48%

_{Comparing conaclos/config-includes-next (abe70bf) with next (4f07cc8)}

Summary

⚡ 1 improvements
✅ 94 untouched benchmarks

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	next	conaclos/config-includes-next	Change
⚡	react.production.min_3378072959512366797.js[cached]	2 ms	1.9 ms	+7.48%

[Conaclos]

While I am testing the change, I noted some issues with our way of handling paths.

Given the following hierarchy:

.
└── src
    └── file.js

Biome will provide different paths to the glob matcher according to the command:

• biome check . provides ., ./src, and ./src/file.js
• biome check provides /absolute/path/, /absolute/path/src, and /absolute/path/src/file.js
• biome check src provides src, and src/file.js
• biome check ../../absolute/path provides ../../absolute/path, ../../absolute/path/src, and ../../absolute/path/src/file.js

This was not causing any issue with include/ignore because our glob library implicitly added ** in front of any glob.

We have to normalize the path provided on the CLI in order to solve the issue.
We should certainly normalize it against the path of the active configuration file biome.json.

I don't know how this affects our LSP.

Maybe related to the PR #4823 and the issue #4868?