osdocs-2368: updating 4.8 references to 4.9#36974
osdocs-2368: updating 4.8 references to 4.9#36974jeana-redhat merged 1 commit intoopenshift:mainfrom
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/L
|
✔️ Deploy Preview for osdocs ready! 🔨 Explore the source changes: c0fc03d 🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/osdocs/deploys/6169747f1055e200077c4986 😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-36974--osdocs.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/installing/installing_bare_metal_ipi/ipi-install-installation-workflow |
kalexand-rh
force-pushed
the
osdocs2368
branch
from
7575d34 to
2ffea46
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rolfedh, PTAL at my guess at the logging updates?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@anpingli Would you review and approve this change for OpenShift 4.9 GA?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Logging 5.2 support OCP 4.7,4.8, 4.9.
We only support 5.2 on OCP 4.9
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| {product-title} 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 support OpenShift Logging 5.0, 5.1, and 5.2. | |
| .{product-title} version support for Red Hat OpenShift Logging (RHOL) | |
| [frame="topbot",options="header"] | |
| |==== | |
| | |4.7 |4.8 |4.9 | |
| |RHOL 5.0|yes |yes | | |
| |RHOL 5.1|yes |yes | | |
| |RHOL 5.2|yes |yes |yes | |
| |==== |
modules/ipi-install-modifying-install-config-for-dual-stack-network.adoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
modules/ossm-rn-fixed-issues.adoc
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@JStickler, should this be updated before OCP 4.9 GA?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @kalexand-rh my understanding is that we wanted to specifically communicate that to customers. That change was made to follow/mirror a change made in OCP 4.8.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rh-tokeefe, this change is going to make less sense in the 4.9 version of the docs, but I'm happy to leave it for you to follow up on separately.
ousleyp
left a comment
ousleyp
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I responded on each file; thanks! :)
kalexand-rh
force-pushed
the
osdocs2368
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ec191c2 to
3cf547f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@anpingli Would you review and approve this change for OpenShift 4.9 GA?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rolfedh Only Logging 5.2 support 4.9. Please remove 5.0,5.1 here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| OpenShift Logging 5.0, 5.1, and 5.2 run on {product-title} 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9. | |
| .{product-title} version support for Red Hat OpenShift Logging (RHOL) | |
| [frame="topbot",options="header"] | |
| |==== | |
| | |4.7 |4.8 |4.9 | |
| |RHOL 5.0|yes |yes | | |
| |RHOL 5.1|yes |yes | | |
| |RHOL 5.2|yes |yes |yes | |
| |==== |
kalexand-rh
force-pushed
the
osdocs2368
branch
from
3cf547f to
1b32d17
Compare
|
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
|
lgtm on Logging |
kalexand-rh
force-pushed
the
osdocs2368
branch
3 times, most recently
from
e1b5181 to
f7e38da
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zhaozhanqi, will you please confirm that this update is acceptable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zhaozhanqi, will you please confirm that this update for 4.9 is acceptable? I need to merge this tomorrow, and I'd much rather do it with your approval!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kalexand-rh seems the date is old for 4.9. we have not 4.9 version in 2020 :) Could you update it with
sriov-network-operator.4.9.0-202110121402
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you so much! (I knew that looked wrong in a way that using a made-up hash doesn't, so thank you for clarifying it!)
@kalexand-rh lgtm |
|
@wsun1 Hi. Do you know if all teams have reviewed this PR? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kalexand-rh metering will not be shipped for 4.9, so I think all metering references should be removed in this upgrade doc https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CLOUDDST-8973
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vikram-redhat, do we have a plan for removing the metering content?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It has been removed: #36779. I guess we should delete the modules/assemblies as well?
@vikram-redhat We reviewed the PR, some docs need KNI and OCS QE to review, I sent one email to ask them to help review. Thanks! |
kalexand-rh
force-pushed
the
osdocs2368
branch
from
7207d7a to
2caeb0f
Compare
kalexand-rh
force-pushed
the
osdocs2368
branch
from
2caeb0f to
c0fc03d
Compare
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.9 |
|
@jeana-redhat: #36974 failed to apply on top of branch "enterprise-4.9": DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
In 4.1, the installer used to explicitly set upstream to our default URI. But in openshift/installer#c9095b34518a0 (data/manifests/bootkube/cvo-overrides: Drop the explicit update, 2020-08-28, openshift/installer#4112), which landed in 4.7 and was not backported, I'd stopped doing that. In clusters born in 4.7 and later, the installer will leave upstream unset, and the cluster-version operator will default to making a reasonable choice. We still need to talk about explicit upstreams in the case where folks are pointing their cluster at a local OpenShift Update Service, but this commit drops the properties where we were incidentally pointing at the default, Red-Hat-hosted location, because explicitly setting that value is an anti-pattern that makes it harder for clusters to adapt if we try to move our default location elsewhere in the future. Also restore a closing brace and dangling comma to clean up after c0fc03d (osdocs-2368: updating 4.8 references to 4.9, 2021-10-01, openshift#36974), which also removed some of the stale 'upstream' references.
In 4.1, the installer used to explicitly set upstream to our default URI. But in openshift/installer#c9095b34518a0 (data/manifests/bootkube/cvo-overrides: Drop the explicit update, 2020-08-28, openshift/installer#4112), which landed in 4.7 and was not backported, I'd stopped doing that. In clusters born in 4.7 and later, the installer will leave upstream unset, and the cluster-version operator will default to making a reasonable choice. We still need to talk about explicit upstreams in the case where folks are pointing their cluster at a local OpenShift Update Service, but this commit drops the properties where we were incidentally pointing at the default, Red-Hat-hosted location, because explicitly setting that value is an anti-pattern that makes it harder for clusters to adapt if we try to move our default location elsewhere in the future. Also restore a closing brace and dangling comma to clean up after c0fc03d (osdocs-2368: updating 4.8 references to 4.9, 2021-10-01, openshift#36974), which also removed some of the stale 'upstream' references.
In 4.1, the installer used to explicitly set upstream to our default URI. But in openshift/installer#c9095b34518a0 (data/manifests/bootkube/cvo-overrides: Drop the explicit update, 2020-08-28, openshift/installer#4112), which landed in 4.7 and was not backported, I'd stopped doing that. In clusters born in 4.7 and later, the installer will leave upstream unset, and the cluster-version operator will default to making a reasonable choice. We still need to talk about explicit upstreams in the case where folks are pointing their cluster at a local OpenShift Update Service, but this commit drops the properties where we were incidentally pointing at the default, Red-Hat-hosted location, because explicitly setting that value is an anti-pattern that makes it harder for clusters to adapt if we try to move our default location elsewhere in the future. Also restore a closing brace and dangling comma to clean up after c0fc03d (osdocs-2368: updating 4.8 references to 4.9, 2021-10-01, openshift#36974), which also removed some of the stale 'upstream' references.
20 participants
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSDOCS-2368
Fixes #36318
4.9
These changes are pervasive, but here's a sample link.