[DOC] Add changes from Cloud Profiles UI to OSS docs

[knylander-grafana]

Add doc changes from the Cloud Profiles UI docs back to the Pyroscope OSS equivalent. Based on https://github.com/grafana/website/pull/19509

[aleks-p]

This seems off, as we talk about memory in the previous line. Do we want to reuse the entire paragraph from https://github.com/grafana/website/pull/19509/?

[knylander-grafana]

Here's the entire text from the website PR:

This screenshot shows a spike in CPU usage.
Without profiling, you would go from a spike in CPU usage metric to digging through code or guessing what the cause.
However, with profiling, you can use the flame graph and table to see exactly which function is most responsible for the spike.
Often this shows up as a single node taking up a noticeably disproportionate width in the flame graph as seen below with the checkDriverAvailability function.

From what you're saying, it looks like we should replace "Let's say that your app has a spike in memory usage" with "This screenshot shows a spike in CPU usage."

Is there additional text you would like to see included?

[aleks-p]

Yes, that replacement makes sense since the screenshot we show after this text (https://grafana.com/docs/pyroscope/latest/view-and-analyze-profile-data/pyroscope-ui/#single-view) has a CPU profile.

Is there additional text you would like to see included?

Not really, the "fix" above should be enough. I do however think we have a minor phrasing issue in this line (also present in https://github.com/grafana/website/pull/19509)

Here we say

Without profiling, you would go from a spike CPU usage metric to digging through code or guessing the cause.

In https://github.com/grafana/website/pull/19509 we say

Without profiling, you would go from a spike in CPU usage metric to digging through code or guessing what the cause.

This could work:

Without profiling, you would go from the CPU usage metric spike to digging through code or guessing the cause.

[knylander-grafana]

I think the bottom sentence is what it's supposed to be. The original PR I missed deleting "what".

[knylander-grafana]

Fixed: https://github.com/grafana/website/pull/19597

[aleks-p]

I found a small phrasing issue, otherwise it looks good!

[github-actions]

The backport to release/v1.5 failed:

Validation Failed: "Could not resolve to a node with the global id of 'T_kwDOAG3Mbc4AczmP'."

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-3243-to-release/v1.5 origin/release/v1.5
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x bf51cd8484839f3fda82c3ce75b4bc1f78fead68

When the conflicts are resolved, stage and commit the changes:

git add . && git cherry-pick --continue

If you have the GitHub CLI installed:

# Push the branch to GitHub:
git push --set-upstream origin backport-3243-to-release/v1.5
# Create the PR body template
PR_BODY=$(gh pr view 3243 --json body --template 'Backport bf51cd8484839f3fda82c3ce75b4bc1f78fead68 from #3243{{ "\n\n---\n\n" }}{{ index . "body" }}')
# Create the PR on GitHub
echo "${PR_BODY}" | gh pr create --title "[release/v1.5] [DOC] Add changes from Cloud Profiles UI to OSS docs" --body-file - --label "type/docs" --label "backport" --base release/v1.5 --milestone release/v1.5 --web

Or, if you don't have the GitHub CLI installed (we recommend you install it!):

# Push the branch to GitHub:
git push --set-upstream origin backport-3243-to-release/v1.5

# Create a pull request where the `base` branch is `release/v1.5` and the `compare`/`head` branch is `backport-3243-to-release/v1.5`.

# Remove the local backport branch
git switch main
git branch -D backport-3243-to-release/v1.5