📖 update links in release tasks docs

[cahillsf]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Relates to #9800

follow up from last v1.6 release cut

[k8s-ci-robot]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[cahillsf]

👋 @furkatgofurov7 did i capture all the links we wanted to update?

[cahillsf]

/area release

[furkatgofurov7]

@cahillsf I would update all references in the doc for "Prior art" mentions with newer PR references and adapt the doc to be based off of the latest 1.6 release, i.e replacing all mentions of release-1.4 with release-1.6 and changes needed accordingly

[willie-yao]

Looks good pending one nit!

[furkatgofurov7]

Few tasks from comms team seem to be still needing an update (first 3) and some minor nits, overall looks good so far

[cahillsf]

Few tasks from comms team seem to be still needing an update (first 3) and some minor nits, overall looks good so far

thanks @furkatgofurov7 , i pushed an update to the first two. this one is a bit interesting because it doesn't look like they've been done for the v1.6 cycle.

it's strange though because this link for 1.5 works (https://release-1-5.cluster-api.sigs.k8s.io/) even though there does not appear to be a cname entry for it in the file referenced for prior art: https://github.com/ykakarap/k8s.io/blob/5a3c7bfb63ca564a0912ee346a1585b02530b0d0/dns/zone-configs/k8s.io._0_base.yaml#L398-L400

cc @willie-yao

any ideas as to why 1.5 link is served without a CNAME entry? how can we move forward with having 1.6 link serve correctly?

[willie-yao]

any ideas as to why 1.5 link is served without a CNAME entry? how can we move forward with having 1.6 link serve correctly?

Hmm that is quite weird. I didn't work on this task for the v1.6 cycle but I'll take a look and work on a fix!

[willie-yao]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 3c35a1c551b862cc695b7364485ee347bb8d5e12

[furkatgofurov7]

this one is a bit interesting because it doesn't look like they've been done for the v1.6 cycle.

why, we did it in: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/pull/9767/files & kubernetes/k8s.io#6114. Generally, you can also take a look at #9094 for all the references (PRs) of the tasks

[SubhasmitaSw]

/lgtm

[cahillsf]

ah thanks @furkatgofurov7, smh ended up looking at a fork:

https://github.com/ykakarap/k8s.io/blob/5a3c7bfb63ca564a0912ee346a1585b02530b0d0/dns/zone-configs/k8s.io._0_base.yaml#L398-L400

just to confirm:

• it is expected that https://release-1-6.cluster-api.sigs.k8s.io redirects to https://cluster-api.sigs.k8s.io/?
• for release-1.6 it is expected to add the link for the previous minor release in the book intro? i.e release-1.5: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/pull/9767/files

[cahillsf]

cool thanks for all the input here -- @willie-yao @furkatgofurov7 mind giving another lgtm when you have a chance? i think all the feedback has been addressed

[willie-yao]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: e29d3c76ddfe8db92ed21bb9b46cfe1124adfde3

[furkatgofurov7]

thanks @cahillsf, lgtm pending squash from my side

[cahillsf]

merging after squashing per LGTMs above

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: cahillsf

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• docs/release/OWNERS [cahillsf]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment