OSDOCS-4501: Breaks the TP table up by component

[opayne1]

Breaks the TP table up by component

Version(s):
4.12 (can visit backporting at a later date if this format works)

Issue:
OSDOCS-4501

Link to docs preview:
https://52611--docspreview.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/release_notes/ocp-4-12-release-notes.html#ocp-4-12-technology-preview

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

• QE will not be needed for this change.

Additional information:
Some components may not be 100%. Will need the help of the team to ensure the components listed are correct and they have the correct contents.

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Updated build preview is available at:
https://52611--docspreview.netlify.app

Build log: https://circleci.com/gh/ocpdocs-previewbot/openshift-docs/4726

[opayne1]

Using this first entry as an example.
Some feedback I received from the Accessibility open office hours.

• We should spell out the abbreviations the first time they are mentioned in each table
• We should maybe spell out TP GA etc. because the main concern is the "empty" cells with a -. We should replace the - with Not Available

Suggested change

	|Pod-level bonding for secondary networks
	|Technology Preview
	|General Availability
	|General Availability

[jeana-redhat]

This is a HUGE improvement, thanks for taking initiative and even getting a11y involved

Throughout: Technology Preview capitalization should be made consistent

[bergerhoffer]

Is there a particular order for these tables? Just wondering if we should do a purposeful order... alphabetical is an option, but not sure if it's the best. However, I'm assuming that most, if not all, of these categories match categories in the new feature section. What if we mirrored that same order here with these?

[jeana-redhat]

related: afaik there is not really rhyme or reason for the order of the new features (and bugfixes) sections either. I think I had on my RN enhancement wishlist to revisit these, figure out what order makes sense, and make sure they match. (just sharing my thoughts, that would def be out of scope for the PR imho)

[bergerhoffer]

Yeah def don't need to be worrying about that feature category order in this PR, more just to consider matching this table to that.

However I actually vaguely remember someone saying that they had tried to reorder the categories so that they were kind of in line with our topic map TOC on the left (maybe Cody?). And when I check just now, it actually does kind of follow that for a lot of them for the ones that match top-level books. (There might need to be a few adjustments, like moving the auth category up to below "Security" and some others). So maybe we could consider moving those around to be in line.

Can't speak to the bug fixes section though 😉

[opayne1]

Will revisit this comment later. I think it would be great to have them in an intentional order, just need to figure out what that would look like!

[bergerhoffer]

Meant to leave a summary comment in the above review - love these changes. I think they're a huge improvement to the previous unwieldy table!

[jeana-redhat]

Looks like just one missed at the end, very good! See Slack discussion of "OCP" and some suggestions, but otherwise this all LGTM 👍

[abhatt-rh]

Hi @opayne1,
The new and improved table for TP looks great! I noticed two typos and suggested corrections.