RFR: 8350136: Create release notes for JavaFX 24 [v3]

[Kevin Rushforth]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:15:49 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> doc-files/release-notes-24.md line 191:
>> 
>>> 189: [JDK-8338701](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338701) | Provide media support for libavcodec version 61 | media
>>> 190: [JDK-8346228](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346228) | Update GStreamer to 1.24.10 | media
>>> 191: [JDK-8346229](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346229) | Update Glib to 2.82.4 | media
>> 
>> I'm not sure it's beneficial to include obsolete version updates. If the final update of a dependency is to 1.2.3, then any previous update (1.2.1) doesn't need to be listed, in my opinion.
>
> This is similar (but not quite the same) to the case of a bug that was introduced and fixed in the same release, which we exclude with the rationale that the end user or app developer who updates from one release to the next never sees the interim state. I can see a case for excluding these two third-party updates using the same reasoning.
> 
> What do others think? @hjohn @johanvos @andy-goryachev-oracle ?

> I am in favor of keeping intermediary revisions for the same reason @kevinrushforth mentioned, and also because it eliminates manual filtering (?) and associated mistakes.

Actually, I was pointing out that it might be more consistent to _not_ keep them -- treating them like transiently introduced bugs -- but I can see both points. I'll let this percolate for a day or two and then we can decide.

By default I'll leave them in since that's what we've done in the past, but they add little value.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1712#discussion_r1990118384