doc: add supported platforms description

[saghul]

Rendered: https://github.com/saghul/libuv/blob/supported-platforms/SUPPORTED_PLATFORMS.md

[saghul]

/cc @libuv/collaborators

[jBarz]

I would like to add ">= V2R2" for z/OS version

[saghul]

@jBarz done!

[txdv]

Maybe add some direction on how to add a new platform and what to expected when you add one?

[saghul]

@txdv Adding a new platform is a rare occurrence. It's typically a Unix variant, but I don't want to add a "Add your platform!" section because there are things we don't want to support: cygwin, for example. It all comes down to who is going to maintain those. AIX and z/OS are only there because IBM promised to maintain them.

[bnoordhuis]

s/reached/reaches/ and maybe replace 'EOL' with 'end of life' for people not familiar with the shorthand.

[bnoordhuis]

cc @misterdjules for the sunos/solaris status change.

[saghul]

@txdv I've had a change of heart after having a shower :-) I'll add some text, with a bold note indicating that we don't intend to become a UBA. Having it documented could help future maintainers.

[saghul]

Fixed up the FreeBSD text and added a section about adding new platforms. PTAL.

[misterdjules]

@bnoordhuis Thanks for the heads up!

A couple of questions:

1. What does it take to move from tier 3 to tier 1? For instance, if all tests pass on a platform and someone shows commitment to fix any issue that arise, what is the process for requesting that a given platform moves from tier N to tier N-1?
2. Is it possible to make the distinction between SunOS, Solaris and SmartOS? These are not the same operating systems, and it seems conflating them into one leads to confusion (e.g when Solaris users download SmartOS builds that use the name "sunos").

[saghul]

Ahoi!

What does it take to move from tier 3 to tier 1? For instance, if all tests pass on a platform and someone shows commitment to fix any issue that arise, what is the process for requesting that a given platform moves from tier N to tier N-1?

There is no process in-place, we are here now trying to solve this dilemma :-) But yeah, given that SunOS / SmartOS is not that "mainstream" we need someone to step up and maintain it. Similar to how AIX and z/OS show on the table.

As an example, I'm about to send a PR which breaks SmartOS (unintentionally, I swear!) and I honestly have no idea how to fix it at a quick glance. Who do I @ ?

Is it possible to make the distinction between SunOS, Solaris and SmartOS? These are not the same operating systems, and it seems conflating them into one leads to confusion (e.g when Solaris users download SmartOS builds that use the name "sunos").

AFAIK we have been treating them the same until now. We probably only support SmartOS, I guess. We could update the table and say we support SmartOS, that would mean that other Solaris derivatives fall into the "other" category.

[misterdjules]

But yeah, given that SunOS / SmartOS is not that "mainstream" we need someone to step up and maintain it. Similar to how AIX and z/OS show on the table.

Absolutely, that makes sense.

As an example, I'm about to send a PR which breaks SmartOS (unintentionally, I swear!) and I honestly have no idea how to fix it at a quick glance. Who do I @ ?

You can definitely mention me, and I'll take a look asap.

We could update the table and say we support SmartOS, that would mean that other Solaris derivatives fall into the "other" category.

Maybe Solaris could also be Tier 3? I don't know because I haven't used a Sun/Oracle Solaris operating system in a long time. Maybe someone from the Solaris community would be able to answer that question?

[saghul]

You can definitely mention me, and I'll take a look asap.

Will do, thanks!

Maybe Solaris could also be Tier 3? I don't know because I haven't used a Sun/Oracle Solaris operating system in a long time.

I guess, since we have been claiming to support it to me degree for a while.

Maybe someone from the Solaris community would be able to answer that question?

I don't know anyone I'm afraid. Do you know someone we can contact?

[misterdjules]

Maybe someone from the Solaris community would be able to answer that question?

I don't know anyone I'm afraid. Do you know someone we can contact?

I don't.

[bnoordhuis]

You can definitely mention me, and I'll take a look asap.

Is there a time frame you can commit to? With AIX and z/OS, I can at-mention a fellow IBM'er and I know it will be looked at (and most likely fixed) within 12 hours.

Is it possible to make the distinction between SunOS, Solaris and SmartOS?

I'm okay with that if you can outline when and where there is a material difference. Libuv so far treated them as effectively interchangeable.

[misterdjules]

You can definitely mention me, and I'll take a look asap.

Is there a time frame you can commit to? With AIX and z/OS, I can at-mention a fellow IBM'er and I know it will be looked at (and most likely fixed) within 12 hours.

I'm not sure it makes sense to commit to a time frame in terms of hours, since e.g you and @saghul are in a time zone that has a 8 or 9 hours difference with the time zone I live in. It also depends on the severity of the problem, and other factors (I can be on vacation, sick, etc.). But what I can guarantee is that I have been and I will respond reasonably quickly if I'm mentioned in an issue.

One suggestion to make the communication easier would be to have a libuv/smartos team. I might be the only one in that team at the beginning, but I could try growing that team so that the project gets support on SmartOS specific questions/issues in a timely manner even if I'm not available. How does that sound? If that sounds reasonable, then we could start by pinging that team on every SmartOS specific issue.

I would also suggest adding a smartos label on issues/PRs specific to SmartOS, so that I (and/or any member of the libuv/smartos team) could filter these issues to look at the current backlog of issues specific to SmartOS.

Is it possible to make the distinction between SunOS, Solaris and SmartOS?

I'm okay with that if you can outline when and where there is a material difference.

Sounds good. The differences are sometimes subtle but their impact is significant. I don't have a list ready at hand, but it would probably be a good thing to come up with one and maybe store it somewhere we can point people to. I'll see if I can come up with that list asap.

[bnoordhuis]

I'm not sure it makes sense to commit to a time frame in terms of hours, since e.g you and @saghul are in a time zone that has a 8 or 9 hours difference with the time zone I live in. It also depends on the severity of the problem, and other factors (I can be on vacation, sick, etc.).

I understand that of course. Those 12 hours are not a hard deadline, more an order of magnitude.

To clarify, moving AIX and z/OS to tier 2 is a safe bet because IBM has resources on hand that ensure development is never blocked for long. When someone is sick or on holiday, there is always someone else who can take over.

For SmartOS to be a tier 2 platform (let alone tier 1), a similar commitment is necessary.

One suggestion to make the communication easier would be to have a libuv/smartos team. [...] I would also suggest adding a smartos label on issues/PRs

Sounds reasonable to me. Other collaborators: agree/disagree?

We should add labels for linux, freebsd, etc, as well. We currently only have osx and windows labels.

[saghul]

Sounds reasonable to me. Other collaborators: agree/disagree?

We don't have teams other than collaborators as of yet, since they would be one person only. Maybe we can switch the note from "maintainer" to "overseer" (or something else) and add @misterdjules as the SunOS overseer? At least until we have more people to add to the team.

[misterdjules]

@saghul

We don't have teams other than collaborators as of yet, since they would be one person only.

Is there any problem with having teams of one person? I would see these teams as a label for one or more people who could do some work, and anyone could ping them without wondering if they should be ping one or more people.

[saghul]

@misterdjules

Is there any problem with having teams of one person? I would see these teams as a label for one or more people who could do some work, and anyone could ping them without wondering if they should be ping one or more people.

No problem at all, just a different approach :-) We could create libuv/{aix,sunos,zos} teams and the respective maintainers indeed. @bnoordhuis I get you are on board with with? Can do!

[saghul]

Updated, PTAL. I put SunOS back at tier2 and mentioned teams as maintainers instead of individuals. If we all agree to this I'll go ahead and create the teams.

[bnoordhuis]

s/Maintainer/Maintainers/?

[saghul]

Indeed.

[bnoordhuis]

LGTM

[saghul]

Updated. I'll leave this open a bit more in case other @libuv/collaborators want to weigh in.

I went ahead and created @libuv/aix, @libuv/sunos and @libuv/zos, so @iwuzhere, @misterdjules and @jBarz you should've gotten an invite.

[cjihrig]

LGTM2