Move support section from community to documentation.

--
Change-Id: I48311303c318127eb2a089ae46f892081d2d8584
Reviewed-on: https://bazel-review.googlesource.com/#/c/3842/
MOS_MIGRATED_REVID=125337633

1 files changed, 248 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/site/docs/support.md b/site/docs/support.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..bcfcb389d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/site/docs/support.md
@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+---
+layout: documentation
+title: Support Policy
+---
+
+# Support Policy
+
+We generally avoid making backwards-incompatible changes. We have several years of experience with
+supporting a huge code base that is concurrently worked on by thousands of engineers every day,
+and have successfully made significant changes to the core as well as to the rules without missing
+a beat. We run hundreds of thousands of tests at Google before every single release to ensure that
+it stays that way.
+
+That said, we occasionally have to make incompatible changes in order to fix bugs, to make further
+improvements to the system, such as improving performance or usability, or to lock down APIs that
+are known to be brittle.
+
+This document gives an overview of features that are widely used and that we consider stable. By
+stable, we mean that the changes we make will be backwards compatible, or that we will provide a
+migration path.
+
+It also covers features that are unstable. Either they are not yet widely used, or we are already
+planning to change them significantly, possibly in ways that are not backwards compatible.
+
+We cannot cover everything that might change, but you can reasonably expect that we provide
+advance notice on the mailing list before a major change happens. We're also happy to provide more
+details, just ask on [bazel-discuss](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bazel-discuss).
+
+All undocumented features (attributes, rules, "Make" variables, and flags) are subject to change
+at any time without prior notice. Features that are documented but marked *experimental* are also
+subject to change at any time without prior notice.
+
+The Skylark macro and rules language (anything you write in a `.bzl` file) is still subject to
+change. We are in the process of migrating Google to Skylark, and expect the macro language to
+stabilize as part of that process. The rules language is still somewhat experimental.
+
+Help keep us honest: report bugs and regressions in the
+[GitHub bugtracker](https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues). We will make an effort to triage all
+reported issues within 2 business days.
+
+## Releases
+
+We regularly publish [binary releases of Bazel](https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/releases). To
+that end, we announce release candidates on
+[bazel-discuss](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bazel-discuss); these are binaries that have
+passed all of our unit tests. Over the next few days, we regression test all applicable build
+targets at Google. If you have a critical project using Bazel, we recommend that you establish an
+automated testing process that tracks the current release candidate, and report any regressions.
+
+If no regressions are discovered, we officially release the candidate after a week. However,
+regressions can delay the release of a release candidate. If regressions are found, we apply
+corresponding cherry-picks to the release candidate to fix those regressions. If no further
+regressions are found for two business days, but not before a week has elapsed since the first
+release candidate, we release it.
+
+### Release versioning
+
+Version 0.1 is our first release marking the start of our beta phase. Until version 1.0.0, we
+increase the MINOR version every time we reach a [new milestone](http://bazel.io/roadmap.html).
+
+Version 1.0.0 marks the end of our beta phase; afterwards, we will label each release with a
+version number of the form MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH according to the
+[semantic version 2.0.0 document](http://semver.org).
+
+## Current Status
+
+### Built-In Rules and the Internal API For Rules ###
+We are planning a number of changes to the APIs between the core of Bazel and the built-in rules,
+in order to make it easier for us to develop openly. This has the added benefit of also making it
+easier for users to maintain their own rules (if written in Java instead of Skylark), if they don't
+want to or cannot check this code into our repository. However, it also means our internal API is
+not stable yet. In the long term, we want to move to Skylark wholesale, so we encourage contributors
+to use Skylark instead of Java when writing new rules. Rewriting all of our built-in rules is going
+to be a lengthy process however.
+
+1. We will fix the friction points that we know about, as well as those that we discover every time
+   we make changes that span both the internal and external depots.
+2. We will drive a number of pending API cleanups to completion, as well as run anticipated cleanups
+   to the APIs, such as disallowing access to the file system from rule implementations (because
+   it's not hermetic).
+3. We will enumerate the internal rule APIs, and make sure that they are appropriately marked (for
+   example with annotations) and documented. Just collecting a list will likely give us good
+   suggestions for further improvements, as well as opportunities for a more principled API review
+   process.
+4. We will automatically check rule implementations against an API whitelist, with the intention
+   that API changes are implicitly flagged during code review.
+5. We will work on removing (legacy) Google-internal features to reduce the amount of differences
+   between the internal and external rule sets.
+6. We will encourage our engineers to make changes in the external depot first, and migrate them to
+   to the internal one afterwards.
+7. We will move more of our rule implementations into the open source repository (Android, Go,
+   Python, the remaining C++ rules), even if we don't consider the code to be *ready* or if they are
+   still missing tools to work properly.
+8. In order to be able to accept external contributions, our highest priority item for Skylark is a
+   testing framework. We encourage to write new rules in Skylark rather than in Java.
+
+
+### Stable
+We expect the following rules and features to be stable. They are widely used within Google, so
+our internal testing should ensure that there are no major breakages.
+
+<table class="table table-condensed table-striped table-bordered">
+  <colgroup>
+    <col class="support-col-rules" />
+    <col class="support-col-notes" />
+  </colgroup>
+  <thead>
+    <tr>
+      <th>Rules</th>
+      <th>Notes</th>
+    </tr>
+  </thead>
+  <tbody>
+    <tr>
+      <td>C/C++ rules except <code>cc_toolchain</code> and <code>cc_toolchain_suite</code></td>
+      <td></td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td>Java rules except <code>java_toolchain</code></td>
+      <td></td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td>Android rules except <code>android_ndk_repository</code> and
+        <code>android_sdk_repository</code></td>
+      <td></td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>genrule</code></td>
+      <td></td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>genquery</code></td>
+      <td></td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>test_suite</code></td>
+      <td></td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>filegroup</code></td>
+      <td></td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>config_setting</code></td>
+      <td>
+        <ul>
+          <li>This rule is used in <code>select()</code> expressions. We have hundreds of uses, so
+            we expect the basic functionality to be stable. That said, there are some common use
+            cases that are not covered yet, or that require workarounds. For example, it's not
+            easily possible to select on information specified in a CROSSTOOL file, such as the
+            target abi. Another example is that it's not possible to OR multiple conditions,
+            leading to duplicated entries in the select.
+          </li>
+        </ul>
+      </td>
+    </tr>
+  </tbody>
+</table>
+
+
+### Unstable
+These rules and features have known limitations that we will likely address in future releases.
+
+<table class="table table-condensed table-striped table-bordered">
+  <colgroup>
+    <col class="support-col-rules" />
+    <col class="support-col-notes" />
+  </colgroup>
+  <thead>
+    <tr>
+      <th>Feature</th>
+      <th>Notes</th>
+    </tr>
+  </thead>
+  <tbody>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>cc_toolchain</code> and <code>cc_toolchain_suite</code></td>
+      <td>
+        <ul>
+          <li>We intend to make significant changes to the way C/C++ toolchains are defined; we will
+            keep our published C/C++ toolchain definition(s) up to date, but we make no guarantees for
+            custom ones.</li>
+        </ul>
+      </td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td>iOS/Objective C rules</td>
+      <td>
+        <ul>
+          <li>We cannot vouch for changes made by Apple &reg; to the underlying tools and
+            infrastructure.</li>
+          <li>The rules are fairly new and still subject to change; we try to avoid breaking changes,
+            but this may not always be possible.</li>
+          <li>No testing support yet.</li>
+        </ul>
+      </td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td>Python rules</td>
+      <td>
+        <ul>
+          <li>The rules support neither Python 3, C/C++ extensions, nor packaging.
+          </li>
+        </ul>
+      </td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td>Extra actions (<code>extra_action</code>, <code>action_listener</code>)</td>
+      <td>
+        <ul>
+          <li>Extra actions expose information about Bazel that we consider to be implementation
+            details, such as the exact interface between Bazel and the tools we provide; as such,
+            users will need to keep up with changes to tools to avoid breakage.</li>
+        </ul>
+      </td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>environment_group</code></td>
+      <td>
+        <ul>
+          <li>We're planning to use it more extensively, replacing several machine-enforable
+            constraint mechanism, but there's only a handful of uses so far. We fully expect it to
+            work, but there's a small chance that we have to go back to the drawing board.</li>
+        </ul>
+      </td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>android_ndk_repository</code> and <code>android_sdk_repository</code></td>
+      <td>
+        <ul>
+          <li>We don't support pre-release NDKs or SDKs at this time. Furthermore, we may still
+            make backwards-incompatible changes to the attributes or the semantics.</li>
+        </ul>
+      </td>
+    </tr>
+    <tr>
+      <td><code>Fileset</code></td>
+      <td>
+        <ul>
+          <li>There are vestiges of Fileset / FilesetEntry in the source code, but we do not intend to
+            support them in Bazel, ever.</li>
+          <li>They're still widely used internally, and are therefore unlikely to go away in the near
+            future.</li>
+        </ul>
+      </td>
+  </tbody>
+</table>
+