doc(self-managed): drop support of openshift 4.12 and add support of openshift 4.16

[leiicamundi]

Description

OpenShift 4.12 is out of our support matrix since the EOL of the version.
OpenShift 4.16 has been released and tested on our side (camunda/camunda-platform-helm#2131).

When should this change go live?

• This is a bug fix, security concern, or something that needs urgent release support.
• This is already available but undocumented and should be released within a week.
• This on a specific schedule and the assignee will coordinate a release with the DevEx team. (apply hold label or convert to draft PR)
• This is part of a scheduled alpha or minor. (apply alpha or minor label)
• There is no urgency with this change and can be released at any time.

PR Checklist

• My changes are for an already released minor and are in /versioned_docs directory.
• My changes are for the next minor and are in /docs directory (aka /next/).

• My changes require an Engineering review, and I've assigned the Engineering DRI or delegate.
• My changes require a technical writer review, and I've assigned @camunda/tech-writers as a reviewer.

[mesellings]

@leiicamundi I will review this for you 👍

[mesellings]

@leiicamundi I notice you talk about dropping 4.13 support, but have only removed the 4.12 table row - just want to confirm this is correct?

[leiicamundi]

Hi @mesellings, it's a error on my side, I was referring to 4.12 that is now EOL.

[mesellings]

@leiicamundi I've made review edits directly in the branch:

• Fixed list indentation and numbering
• Some grammar, text changes

Happy to approve 👍

[leiicamundi]

Thank you, @mesellings! I really appreciate the improvements you made to this doc. 😊

I'll ask either @jessesimpson36 or @Langleu to do a second review from the support perspective.

@theburi, just for your information, we’ve added OpenShift 4.16 to the support matrix and removed version 4.12 (which is now EOL). This is part of our standard maintenance cycle. Could you please approve this change?

Also, @mesellings, I'll have limited access to my computer this week. Please feel free to merge the PR if needed once everyone has validated it.

Thank you!

[jessesimpson36]

This PR seems pretty inconsistent. do you prefer indented codeblocks or non-indented codeblocks?
https://github.com/camunda/camunda-docs/pull/4224/files#diff-a2f46593f55132fad493be0c88dcd7ae6aa247e7afaf0bf345d2102fb9161661R76

[jessesimpson36]

I'm good with the changes. Personally, I would have preferred if the git-diff wasn't littered with indentation changes but what matters moreso to me is the rendered docs, and those changes are good content.

[mesellings]

I'm good with the changes. Personally, I would have preferred if the git-diff wasn't littered with indentation changes but what matters moreso to me is the rendered docs, and those changes are good content.

Thank you - the indentation is (unfortunately) required by Docusaurus to nest code blocks etc with the relevant list item - I agree it looks messy, but is just how Docusaurus allows you to nest inside lists.

For example, to have the code block align with the prior list item, you need to add 3 spaces as an indent to trigger this, otherwise it is placed 'outside' the list.

[github-actions]

🧹 Preview environment for this PR has been torn down.