Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@skopacz1: This pull request references OSDOCS-17076 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/L
modules/update-duration-example.adoc
Outdated
| The Network and DNS Operators utilize full-cluster DaemonSets, which can take time to roll out their version changes, and this is one of several reasons why these Operators might take longer to update themselves. | ||
|
|
||
| The update duration for some Operators is heavily dependent on characteristics of the cluster itself. For instance, the Machine Config Operator update applies machine configuration changes to each node in the cluster. A cluster with many nodes has a longer update duration for the Machine Config Operator compared to a cluster with fewer nodes. | ||
| Additionally, the update duration for some Operators is heavily dependent on characteristics of the cluster itself. For instance, the Machine Config Operator update applies machine configuration changes to each node in the cluster. A cluster with many nodes has a longer update duration for the Machine Config Operator compared to a cluster with fewer nodes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 [error] RedHat.TermsErrors: Use 'for example' rather than 'For instance'. For more information, see RedHat.TermsErrors.
modules/update-duration-factors.adoc
Outdated
| = Factors affecting update duration | ||
|
|
||
| [role="_abstract"] | ||
| The duration of {product-title} updates vary for a number of reasons. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 [error] RedHat.TermsErrors: Use 'several' rather than 'a number of'. For more information, see RedHat.TermsErrors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 [error] AsciiDocDITA.DocumentTitle: The document title (a level 0 heading) is missing.
skopacz1
force-pushed
the
OSDOCS-17076_2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
729a389 to
224953c
Compare
|
@skopacz1: This pull request references OSDOCS-17076 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
skopacz1
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
removed
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@skopacz1: No Jira issue is referenced in the title of this pull request. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
skopacz1
added
jira/valid-reference
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 [error] AsciiDocDITA.DocumentTitle: The document title (a level 0 heading) is missing.
skopacz1
force-pushed
the
OSDOCS-17076_2
branch
from
224953c to
4d758ca
Compare
|
/retest |
|
@skopacz1: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
skopacz1
added
the
merge-review-needed
lahinson
added
merge-review-in-progress
lahinson
left a comment
lahinson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@skopacz1 Changes look good! I commented in a couple of places where I thought maybe a content type needed to be reconsidered. I trust you to address or ignore my comments as you think best and merge this one when you're ready.
| @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ | |||
| :_mod-docs-content-type: CONCEPT | |||
| [id="fast-stable-channel-strategies_{context}"] | |||
| = Choosing the correct channel for your cluster | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since this module is a concept, consider using something besides a gerund to start the title. Maybe something like "What to consider before you choose an update channel for a cluster" or "Update channel considerations".
| @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | |||
| :_mod-docs-content-type: CONCEPT | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be a procedure?
| // | ||
| // * updating/understanding_updates/understanding-openshift-update-duration.adoc | ||
|
|
||
| :_mod-docs-content-type: REFERENCE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be a procedure?
| // | ||
| // * updating/understanding_updates/understanding-openshift-update-duration.adoc | ||
|
|
||
| :_mod-docs-content-type: CONCEPT |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this is splitting hairs, but if the purpose of this module is to provide an example, I'd categorize it as a reference.
lahinson
added
ok-to-merge
and removed
merge-review-in-progress
5 participants
OSDOCS-17076
Version(s): 4.16+
Note to reviewer: with the exception of some short descriptions, this has almost no new content. All the big blocks in the diff are me moving content into new modules.
This PR is the second of two PRs to CQA the understanding updates section.
QE review: Just CQA changes, if anything appears to change technical accuracy feel free to let me know
Previews:
Understanding update channels and releases
Understanding OpenShift update duration