Add a project support-matrix

[MrAlias]

Summary

This PR adds an in-repo support matrix for OBI and links it from the top-level docs.

Part of #1757.

What it does

• adds SUPPORT_MATRIX.md
• links it from README.md
• links it from VERSIONING.md
• proposes the full shape of the OBI v1 support matrix, not just platform coverage

Proposed support-matrix shape

The support matrix in this PR now covers:

• release artifacts
• runtime requirements
• current validation coverage
• protocol instrumentation
• runtime, server, and library instrumentation
• context propagation frameworks
• GPU instrumentation
• explicitly out-of-scope environments

Intent

This is meant to give the repository a single place to define what OBI documents as supported as we work toward v1.

At this point, the document is intended to propose the actual shape and content of a v1 support matrix, using support claims that already exist across repository code, docs, tests, examples, and validation workflows.

Important distinction: documented support vs validated support

This PR does not claim that every row in the support matrix is validated to the same degree.

Some entries are backed by direct repository validation today, especially the platform and release-artifact sections.
Other entries are currently documented support claims derived from repository docs and existing test fixtures, but still need additional validation work before they should be treated as fully validated v1 contract rows.

Part of the follow-up work from this PR is to close that gap row by row.

Maintainer review request

This PR is asking for maintainer buy-in on both the structure and the scope this document implies.

In particular:

• is this the right shape for the OBI v1 support matrix?
• is this the support scope we want to document for OBI as we move toward v1?
• which sections are ready to be treated as validated support, and which still need follow-up validation?
• do we want to keep some areas conservative, or broaden them to match current opentelemetry.io support claims?

Today, the repository and opentelemetry.io are not fully aligned, so part of the goal here is to make that mismatch explicit and start converging on one support story.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 57.22%. Comparing base (fe783ea) to head (ede41ac).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (fe783ea) and HEAD (ede41ac). Click for more details.

HEAD has 43 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (fe783ea)	HEAD (ede41ac)
oats-test	6	0
k8s-integration-test	15	0
integration-test-arm	4	0
integration-test-vm-x86_64-5.15.152	4	0
integration-test-vm-x86_64-6.10.6	4	0
integration-test	10	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1760       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   67.25%   57.22%   -10.03%     
===========================================
  Files         274      273        -1     
  Lines       32170    26340     -5830     
===========================================
- Hits        21637    15074     -6563     
- Misses       9292    10348     +1056     
+ Partials     1241      918      -323     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-test	?
integration-test-arm	?
integration-test-vm-x86_64-5.15.152	?
integration-test-vm-x86_64-6.10.6	?
k8s-integration-test	?
oats-test	?
unittests	57.22% <ø> (+11.40%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Note

Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.

Adds an in-repo support matrix to document OBI’s currently supported environments/artifacts and links it from existing top-level docs to make support claims explicit as the project moves toward v1.

Changes:

• Added SUPPORT_MATRIX.md defining supported artifacts, runtime requirements, and validation coverage.
• Linked the support matrix from README.md and VERSIONING.md.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File	Description
VERSIONING.md	Adds a pointer to the new support matrix as the canonical location for support claims.
SUPPORT_MATRIX.md	Introduces the initial support matrix (artifacts, runtime requirements, validation coverage, language/library baselines).
README.md	Adds a top-level doc link to the support matrix for quick discoverability.

[grcevski]

Looks great! Just a question on Ruby Puma (used in Rails) and Nginx (which we support from version forever ago, but I can look at when the initial code that we tap into was added).

[NimrodAvni78]

We don't specify any of the network protocols, is this on purpose?

[MrAlias]

We don't specify any of the network protocols, is this on purpose?

I was thinking only about the platform and packages. Mostly to get the conversation started and get these kinds of suggestions. 😄

I'll look into adding that.

[MrAlias]

Updated. Added protocol support. And while doing so, added context propagation and GPU support to the matrix. I'm assuming these as well will be in the v1 scope.

[MrAlias]

I've also updated the PR description to reflect how this has move "validated support" to "documented support". From what I can tell, we do not test the full support matrix, and will need to decide on how or if we want to do this for the v1.

[mmat11]

lgtm; can we add a line to .github/pull_request_template.md which will suggest to keep this document updated in addition to devdocs/features.md?