feat: added release page in docs

[jeluard]

Motivation

Display releases in the documentation

This is a first draft aiming at initiating discussion to figure out what is the best option to share releases.

I can see 2 angles:

• list all binaries per release (above screenshot)
• list binaries per platform (same as geth)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #6669 (4e58e65) into unstable (2d766ca) will increase coverage by 0.13%. Report is 4 commits behind head on unstable. The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           unstable    #6669      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.67%   61.81%   +0.13%     
============================================
  Files           556      556              
  Lines         58834    59050     +216     
  Branches       1888     1898      +10     
============================================
+ Hits          36288    36502     +214     
  Misses        22505    22505              
- Partials         41       43       +2     

[wemeetagain]

Since we're starting with just linux x86_64 and arm64 binaries, I think its fine to just group them together like you have now. We don't need to list the .node files since they are not useful for user download (maybe you just have them there as an example)

[jeluard]

@wemeetagain Right, I'm using blst repo for those tests which publishes those node files as part of releases.

[philknows]

I tend to agree with @nflaig here. Binaries are just another installation method and should just have its own section under Installation.

I do like the way you cleanly table the releases here, but we definitely don't need to list all of them. I would maybe only go 5 releases back at most, similar to what we would be doing with docs versions. There should be no reason why (nor should we promote) having people stay more than 5 releases behind. This is a pretty weak assumption on my part and open to other opinions.

[nflaig]

should just have its own section under Installation.

What about having a separate page per installation method? We had this previously (before https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/6134), this makes it easier to read and less overloaded with instructions that are unrelated to each other.

[philknows]

That is also an option so we can keep various installation methods and their quirks separate from each other. So perhaps:

• Getting Started
  • Quick Start
  • Installation via Binaries
  • Installation via Docker
  • Installation via NPM (which will literally say don't do this for production - instructions were removed to deter this)
  • Starting a Node (which I would recommend in another PR to move into the "Beacon Node" H1 dropdown.

[nflaig]

So perhaps:

or subsections in installation

Starting a Node (which I would recommend in another PR to move into the "Beacon Node" H1 dropdown.

Maybe we need to rethink what should be part of getting started, just having installation in there is also a bit strange

[jeluard]

It probably makes sense to reconsider this in the context of https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/issues/6550

[nflaig]

Noticed Lighthouse has same layout for Installation as I had in mind

This would also allow to use the page you created in this PR I would assume

[nflaig]

Noticed Lighthouse has same layout for Installation as I had in mind

This would also allow to use the page you created in this PR I would assume

is this a possible layout we can go for right now? This feels important to have on the next release, otherwise we will have really low visibilty on the binaries as an installation option (other than announcing it in release notes)

[philknows]

is this a possible layout we can go for right now? This feels important to have on the next release, otherwise we will have really low visibilty on the binaries as an installation option (other than announcing it in release notes)

I would say as a stop-gap measure, we can at least get the layout for Installation section as described here so we can include some instructions for the binaries? This might be better off as another PR though @jeluard. We haven't come to a conclusion about this release page in the docs, but every layout discussed in #6550 doesn't include this page. So we can close this one off unless someone expresses desire to include this by standup discussion tomorrow on #6829

[jeluard]

Would make sense to bundle this page with the new docs layout, one less broken link to deal with. Feels like we are close to be able to make a decision on #6550 , would be cool to make a call on it.

[jeluard]

It's been decided to rely on GitHub releases page for now instead.

[nflaig]

It's been decided to rely on GitHub releases page for now instead.

Are we still gonna highlight binaries as an installation method in the docs? We can just ref to release on github for users to find the download link

[jeluard]

@nflaig Yes, you can see how it's done in the related PR about documentation layout updates.

[philknows]

Yeah I'm fine with how it is now, but I understand you wanted it as a higher level heading on its own page based on the LH docs structure. I'm indifferent. As long as it's in the docs, that's what is most important for now IMO.