Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add OLM 1.0 relnote for 4.14 #63605

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2023
Merged

Conversation

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 15, 2023
@ocpdocs-previewbot
Copy link

ocpdocs-previewbot commented Aug 15, 2023

🤖 Updated build preview is available at:
https://63605--docspreview.netlify.app

Build log: https://circleci.com/gh/ocpdocs-previewbot/openshift-docs/28978

@adellape adellape changed the title Add OLM v1 relnote for 4.14 [WIP] Add OLM v1 relnote for 4.14 Aug 15, 2023
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Aug 15, 2023
. Build your catalog as an image.
. Publish your catalog image.

For more information, see "Managing catalogs for OLM v1".
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

xref to content to be added after #63086 merges.

@adellape adellape changed the title [WIP] Add OLM v1 relnote for 4.14 Add initial OLM v1 relnote for 4.14 Sep 1, 2023
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Sep 1, 2023
@adellape adellape added this to the Planned for 4.14 GA milestone Sep 1, 2023
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 1, 2023
|Technology Preview

|Node Observability Operator
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removing "Node Observability Operator" from the "Operator lifecycle and development Technology Preview tracker" because it is a duplicate here and is already represented (and is a better fit) over in the "Scalability and performance Technology Preview features" section.

|Technology Preview
|Technology Preview
|Technology Preview

|Multi-cluster Engine Operator
Copy link
Contributor Author

@adellape adellape Sep 1, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure why "Multi-cluster Engine Operator" is here in the "Operator lifecycle and development Technology Preview tracker", so I moved it down to the "Architecture Technology Preview features" section since it seemed like it is related to hosted control planes. But I will follow up with the related tech writer to confirm that before merge.

@adellape adellape added the peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR label Sep 1, 2023
@skopacz1
Copy link
Contributor

skopacz1 commented Sep 5, 2023

/label peer-review-in-progress

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR label Sep 5, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@skopacz1 skopacz1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Left a nit and a suggestion, otherwise looks good!

release_notes/ocp-4-14-release-notes.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
release_notes/ocp-4-14-release-notes.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@skopacz1
Copy link
Contributor

skopacz1 commented Sep 5, 2023

/remove-label peer-review-needed
/remove-label peer-review-in-progress

/label peer-review-done

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR and removed peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR labels Sep 5, 2023
@adellape adellape force-pushed the olmv1_rn branch 4 times, most recently from 646236d to 1dc8661 Compare October 2, 2023 20:58
Comment on lines +190 to +192
//Next-gen (OCP 4.13+) Operator Lifecycle Manager, aka "v1"
:olmv1: OLM 1.0
:olmv1-first: Operator Lifecycle Manager (OLM) 1.0
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am borrowing this from the unmerged main PR https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/65963/files. Whichever merges first, this should come out in the rebase-wash.

@adellape adellape changed the title Add initial OLM v1 relnote for 4.14 Add OLM 1.0 relnote for 4.14 Oct 18, 2023
@adellape adellape added peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR and removed peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR labels Oct 18, 2023
@adellape
Copy link
Contributor Author

adellape commented Oct 18, 2023

Looking for another round of peer review since this has had significant additions/changes since the last one. xrefs to be tidied up after #65963 merges.

@jldohmann jldohmann added the peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR label Oct 18, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@jldohmann jldohmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice work! Generally LGTM, left some comments below

* The `Catalog` API, provided by the new Catalogd component, serves as the foundation for {olmv1}, unpacking catalogs for on-cluster clients so that users can discover installable content, such as Operators and Kubernetes extensions. This provides increased visibility into all available Operator bundle versions, including their details, channels, and update edges.
--
+
For more information, see _Operator Controller_ and _Catalogd_.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you mean to add xrefs here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, yea, mentioned above in #63605 (comment).

release_notes/ocp-4-14-release-notes.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
release_notes/ocp-4-14-release-notes.adoc Show resolved Hide resolved
release_notes/ocp-4-14-release-notes.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
release_notes/ocp-4-14-release-notes.adoc Show resolved Hide resolved
@jldohmann jldohmann added peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR and removed peer-review-in-progress Signifies that the peer review team is reviewing this PR peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR labels Oct 18, 2023
|Technology Preview
|Technology Preview
|Technology Preview

|RukPak
|Not Available
|Java-based Operator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, the Java-based Operator belongs to the operator-sdk, not OLM.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have this section/table titled as "Operator lifecycle and development Technology Preview features", where "Operator lifecyce" is supposed to suggest "OLM", and "[Operator] development" is supposed to suggest "OSDK". So basically we're treating this table as any features related to the fuller Operator Framework.

|Technology Preview
|Technology Preview

|Platform Operators
|Hybrid Helm Operator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess the Hybrid Helm Operator belongs to the Operator-SDK, not OLM.

{olmv1} simplifies Operator management through two key APIs:
+
--
* The `Operator` API, provided by the new Operator Controller component, streamlines management of installed Operators by consolidating user-facing APIs into a single object. This empowers administrators and SREs to automate processes and define desired states by using GitOps principles.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, OLM has the Operator kind before, which is from the CRD operators.operators.coreos.com. Here is the new Operator kind from CRD: operators.operators.operatorframework.io. Both of them use the operator strings for now.
See the discussion on Slack: https://redhat-internal.slack.com/archives/GHMALGJV6/p1689573773633059 or the https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-22094

MacBook-Pro:~ jianzhang$ oc get operators.operators.operatorframework.io 
NAME           AGE
quay-example   4h10m
MacBook-Pro:~ jianzhang$ oc get operators.operators.coreos.com 
NAME                                                AGE
cluster-logging.openshift-logging                   7h13m
elasticsearch-operator.openshift-operators-redhat   7h13m
loki-operator.openshift-operators-redhat            7h13m
oadp-operator.e2e-test-olm-a-fwobi02w-gsc8h         3h42m

So, to avoid confusion, here I'd suggest using the operators.operators.operatorframework.io instead of operator.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point! I had created this olmv1-operator-api-group.adoc [NOTE] snippet in another WIP PR, which talks about that difference, so I'll re-use that here as well.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well... unfortunately I have discovered you can't use include statements (e.g., for a snippet) within footnotes, and adding the big [NOTE] box in-line with the description list and bullets is pretty unsightly. I think I will just change "The Operator API..." in that first bullet to "A new Operator API..." and then let the linked-to "see Operator Controller" section (which will have the aforementioned snippet/note in it, after the related PR merges) do the explaining on this matter.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, actually I sort of split the difference here, and went with:
image

@adellape adellape merged commit 9d4e03c into openshift:enterprise-4.14 Oct 19, 2023
1 check passed
@adellape adellape deleted the olmv1_rn branch October 19, 2023 19:22
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
branch/enterprise-4.14 peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants