Show distribution file sizes in publish.yml GH Actions workflow

[kandersolar]

• Closes #xxxx
• I am familiar with the contributing guidelines
• Tests added
• Updates entries in docs/sphinx/source/reference for API changes.
• Adds description and name entries in the appropriate "what's new" file in docs/sphinx/source/whatsnew for all changes. Includes link to the GitHub Issue with :issue:`num` or this Pull Request with :pull:`num`. Includes contributor name and/or GitHub username (link with :ghuser:`user`).
• New code is fully documented. Includes numpydoc compliant docstrings, examples, and comments where necessary.
• Pull request is nearly complete and ready for detailed review.
• Maintainer: Appropriate GitHub Labels (including remote-data) and Milestone are assigned to the Pull Request and linked Issue.

With ongoing work around reducing the size of our distribution files, it is helpful to log the filesize in PR dist builds.

[kandersolar]

The publish job now shows filesizes for the distribution files:

-rw-r--r-- 1 runner docker 28M Oct 22 20:59 dist/pvlib-0.11.2.dev21+g698a7cf-py3-none-any.whl
-rw-r--r-- 1 runner docker 34M Oct 22 20:59 dist/pvlib-0.11.2.dev21+g698a7cf.tar.gz

and installed files:

60K	pvlib/bifacial/__pycache__
124K	pvlib/bifacial
16K	pvlib/spa_c_files/__pycache__
40K	pvlib/spa_c_files
58M	pvlib/data
688K	pvlib/__pycache__
36K	pvlib/tests/bifacial/__pycache__
76K	pvlib/tests/bifacial
408K	pvlib/tests/__pycache__
40K	pvlib/tests/spectrum/__pycache__
84K	pvlib/tests/spectrum
132K	pvlib/tests/iotools/__pycache__
288K	pvlib/tests/iotools
40K	pvlib/tests/ivtools/__pycache__
88K	pvlib/tests/ivtools
1.5M	pvlib/tests
76K	pvlib/spectrum/__pycache__
160K	pvlib/spectrum
224K	pvlib/iotools/__pycache__
492K	pvlib/iotools
80K	pvlib/ivtools/__pycache__
180K	pvlib/ivtools
62M	pvlib

[echedey-ls]

Nice idea and nice PR. Minor suggestions down below, feel free to discard them. I would prefer to have all the sizes in the same step so it gets expanded in a click, but it's fine as is.

[kandersolar]

Seems like there are no objections here, so I will go ahead and merge. Thanks for the review @echedey-ls!