[REVIEW] Added cudf example code for haversine distance

[taureandyernv]

Created a cudf -> cuspatial example for haversine distance in the docs
Added example code to the api docs with some explanation on benefits of this method

Description

Checklist

• I am familiar with the Contributing Guidelines.
• New or existing tests cover these changes.
• The documentation is up to date with these changes.

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[taureandyernv]

Thanks @jarmak-nv for the quick review. Made the changes.

[jarmak-nv]

Thanks for the quick updates, LGTM pending CI pass.

[jakirkham]

Thanks Taurean! 🙏

Looks like the style check caught some extraneous spaces

Added suggestions below to drop these

[jakirkham]

Thanks Taurean! 🙏

Looks like the style check caught some line length issues. Added some suggestions to wrap them

Hopefully the last issue here

[harrism]

This can't be merged into 23.08. Please retarget.

[taureandyernv]

We were hoping to slip it in with the other hotfixes. There is another PR for cuspatial that will be part of it. May we still keep it in 23.08? From: Mark Harris ***@***.***> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 2:39 PM To: rapidsai/cuspatial ***@***.***> Cc: Taurean Dyer ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [rapidsai/cuspatial] [REVIEW] Added cudf example code for haversine distance (PR #1259) This can't be merged into 23.08. Please retarget. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1259 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALGCYZBG23UOZNKTF4FMVYDXVKLFVANCNFSM6AAAAAA3QABYNY>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[taureandyernv]

superseded by #1260

[harrism]

Just some Python naming suggestions.

[copy-pr-bot]

This pull request requires additional validation before any workflows can run on NVIDIA's runners.

Pull request vetters can view their responsibilities here.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

[ajschmidt8]

This PR has been marked untrusted due to the changes outlined in #1262.

It looks like the PR has unsigned commits.

You can rebase your branch to sign the unsigned commits to avoid having to use an /ok to test comment for every subsequent push.

The blog post below outlines how you can do this:

• https://duan.ca/2016/12/24/rebase-multiple-git-commits-with-signing/

[harrism]

/ok to test

[taureandyernv]

Thanks for the review, @harrism ! I resolved all the changes requested and it's ready for rerun.
/ok to test

[taureandyernv]

reclosing in favor of #1260