📄 Protocol version history within docs

[JFWooten4]

What problem does your feature solve?

Right now, the docs consistently reference outside sources for protocol versions. Generally, they use the SDF announcement blog posts or the StellarExpert protocol history page. They do not often refer to the patch releases in Core.

What would you like to see?

I think we should do one page for protocol versions. Perhaps living under docs/networks . Then it can have subheadings for each version.

What alternatives are there?

The external references aren't convenient (the reader has to toggle between sites). And the source Git releases are a little too technical. And for heaven's sake, I'd like to stop seeing Justin answer these questions in Discord.

[ElliotFriend]

the software versions page (which is, admittedly, behind) does actually link to a release in the stellar/stellar-core repo. Usually those links are listed as "Release Notes" or something. is that what you mean? or is that the point you're making about git releases (i.e., that the linked release notes they're too technical)?

i've been thinking about the software versions a lot, lately (i know you have, too, with #2675). i think i'd love to see that page become a table or something that says what the current versions are on mainnet/testnet/futurenet. then, a new "changelog" page (but really, it's pretty much a cleaned up version of the existing "software versions" page) could offer that kind of historical "snapshot." would that solve the issue you're raising? or do you have something different in mind?

[JFWooten4]

The software versions page is fine. I originally thought about implementing this within that. But I think they are very mismatched concepts (like #2398), which I see as having very different reference patterns.

I agree with using the releases in Core as source documentation material, and much of those notes are in the software version page verbatim. But that litany of specifics isn't useful to pages that just want a reference to Protocol v. X, which did ABC things. I want a more plain-English description of the changes, somewhat like in the SDF blog, but without the "who should care" or "dates/why it matters" sections.

The network constants are a big piece, too. The base reserve over time, transaction set size, and runtime consensus values matter a lot. And they aren't just basic software version changes like a bug fix or code feature.

I agree a table of current SDKs and other tooling makes sense. I think it should lie alongside plain documentation of how the network structurally changed over time. I can put together a high-level draft to better capture the gist of my intent.