Add upstream maintainer info to support page

[sxa]

Description of change

Add upstream maintainer info for each major version to the support page

Checklist

• npm test passes
• documentation is changed or added (if applicable)
• permission has been obtained to add new logo (if applicable)
• contribution guidelines followed here

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for eclipsefdn-adoptium ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	6092222
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/eclipsefdn-adoptium/deploys/64afcc47a4b7b300084ddb09
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1984--eclipsefdn-adoptium.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1984 (6092222) into main (67f4d48) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1984   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.15%   99.15%           
=======================================
  Files          85       85           
  Lines        6181     6181           
  Branches      507      507           
=======================================
  Hits         6129     6129           
  Misses         52       52           

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[sxa]

Removed the lead maintainer's name as it was making the table a little too wide - this is what it looked like before that change:

I've also considered moving the maintainer to under the java version in the first column, which would be an alternative.
Direct link to current previous of this page

[karianna]

I think Andrew Haley would disagree that it is Red Hat, he's always stated that the project lead is an individual, not a company...

[tellison]

@sxa what is the purpose of adding this information to the table? I don't think it is relevant in the context of Adoptium.

[sxa]

@sxa what is the purpose of adding this information to the table? I don't think it is relevant in the context of Adoptium.

Fair enough - my view was that it was useful (to myself to remember who maintained each if no-one else!) to know who was involved in each release and that it wasn't Oracle who maintained all of the LTS releases (which I don't think the general customer base necessarily realises).

If we believe it's not relevant or useful to our customers or our goals then I could cancel it. I thought we'd discussed this earlier in the year somewhere but I can't find a reference to it.

[tellison]

@sxa: I propose this is cancelled, and if the information is not clear in the OpenJDK project then I suggest a change there to clarify who maintains the various code streams.

[sxa]

I don't think it's unclear upstream. This was more about raising the visibility of who is maintaining it on a single page that non developers were likely to visit but if you don't think it's appropriate here I'll close on the absence of their being comments expressing an appetite for it at present.