Provide more clarity around Zowe release compatibilities

[RASakach]

Consumers of Zowe can't easily locate information that explains the compatibility requirements (i.e. what releases) of dependent technologies (e.g. NODE or JAVA) will work for a particular LTS/minor release of Zowe.

Should we introduce something like compatibility matrix or something else to address this challenge?

[balhar-jakub]

@RASakach There is already an issue for this topic here - #1978

[balhar-jakub]

The original proposal for Zowe Docs is here - https://github.com/zowe/docs-site/blob/71488ad225db8fdeea1ab2089587ae9fc5982237/docs/user-guide/systemrequirements-zos.md

[balhar-jakub]

This is technological link to the same problem - #2048

[RASakach]

Proposal for compatibility communications to Zowe consumers:

1. Publish a formal statement / Zowe discloses what is tested with the current, supported LTS releases (Active & maintenance)

• How often do we maintain this? [whenever Zowe changes the test environment used with the automated scripts]
• Where do we document this? [Zowe Docs; will have its own section]
• Do we need to account for toleration & exploitation [no, toleration will be the standard]

2. Zowe messaging will recommend if the consumer requires further requirements beyond what Zowe tests with, they are directed to contact their Zowe Support Provider (we can link to the Support Provider Conformance program)

Next steps: discuss further at TSC and come to an agreement

[adam-wolfe]

In regards to the TSC discussion around this topic

For Zowe CLI and the Zowe Node.js Client SDK:

• We support active or maintenance Node.js LTS releases (currently 20 & 22)
  • Node 24 will enter active LTS sometime this October (and we will support it when this happens)
• We should include supported z/OS and z/OSMF versions

For Zowe Explorer for VS Code:

• We support some minimum version of VS Code (need to confirm which version)
• We should include supported z/OS and z/OSMF versions (which should be the same as Zowe CLI)

[balhar-jakub]

The next steps for @balhar-jakub based on the discussion:

• Update the table to be valid for V3
• Distinguish between client side and server side
• Provide verbiage that allows stating that based on our knowledge someone did the validation.

[RASakach]

Work remains in progress