[chore] Update autoinstrumentation-dotnet to 1.13.0

[martincostello]

Description:

Update the version to match autoinstrumentation/dotnet/version.txt as the comment says it should.

opentelemetry-operator/versions.txt

Lines 28 to 30 in 4d14dcf

	# Represents the current release of DotNet instrumentation.
	# Should match autoinstrumentation/dotnet/version.txt
	autoinstrumentation-dotnet=1.2.0

opentelemetry-operator/autoinstrumentation/dotnet/version.txt

Line 1 in 4d14dcf

1.13.0

I found this after I looked in the release notes, and it says .NET was 1.2.0 not 1.12.0 that I'd expected.

.NET auto-instrumentation - v1.2.0

/cc @Kielek as I assume this should have been part of #4527 (and other previous PRs?)

Link to tracking Issue(s): N/A

• Resolves: N/A

Testing: None - I assume Ci will pick up anything.

Documentation: None

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates the .NET auto-instrumentation version from 1.2.0 to 1.13.0 in versions.txt to match the version specified in autoinstrumentation/dotnet/version.txt, as indicated by the comment in the file.

• Updates autoinstrumentation-dotnet version from 1.2.0 to 1.13.0

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Kielek]

@martincostello, we have introduced breaking changes in 1.3.0 related to http semantic convention.
Operator team decided not to include it by default. I am not sure if anything changed last years.

[martincostello]

Should I just update the comment then in the text file then? Otherwise it just looks like a bug.

Should there be an issue to track updating the version at some point in the future? Feels weird to me for the default to be so out of date and for new users to actively need to override what they get out-of-the box.

[pavolloffay]

We could update the comment, but it is also documented here https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-operator/blob/main/RELEASE.md#release-instructions

[martincostello]

I'll update the comment (and fix the broken warning in that document), as if it did't say it should match, I wouldn't have opened this PR in the first place as it would have been clear they're not intended to match. Given I wasn't preparing a release (and I can't as I'm not a maintainer here), there's no reason to expect I'd have been reading the release instructions.

[martincostello]

#4532