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]

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.

[nflaig]

It would make more sense to add an entry to installation page. We don't really need to list older versions (rather version docs) and binaries is just one way to install Lodestar, having a Releases page like this even before Introduction gives a wrong impression.

[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 #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 #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