Fix release notes links #843
Conversation
|
Updated preview: https://redhat-developer.github.io/red-hat-developers-documentation-rhdh/pr-843/ @ 01/24/25 19:26:30 |
jmagak
force-pushed
the
RHIDP-5458-Fix-Release-Notes-1.4-New-Features-Links
branch
from
890c5fc to
e813b6b
Compare
modules/release-notes/ref-release-notes-deprecated-functionalities.adoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
|
||
| [id="feature-rhidp-3817"] | ||
| == Added Configuration Profiles | ||
|
|
||
| With this update, there are additional link:https://github.com/redhat-developer/rhdh-operator/blob/main/docs/profiles.md[configuration profiles]. | ||
| With this update, there are additional configuration profiles. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why remove link to more information? cc: @rm3l
release notes are generated using JIRA as the single source of truth. Please apply your changes in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHIDP-3817 then run this script:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why remove link to more information? cc: @rm3l
release notes are generated using JIRA as the single source of truth. Please apply your changes in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHIDP-3817 then run this script:
Do we add links to upstream docs? @nickboldt @rm3l
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On this specific release note item, I think https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHIDP-3817 should never have been flagged as an issue requiring release note updates. I don't think this feature is relevant to the end-user. From our product docs, we are always deploying and supporting the RHDH operator profile. So, mentioning additional profiles does not seem relevant to RHDH users, IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we add links to upstream docs?
I understood that the Docs team was okay with that, no?
I remember this question was raised to the docs team in the past (e.g., when linking the airgap prep script for the Operator in the Airgap docs), and it was said that is was fine IIRC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Links to upstream? Yes.
The following docs all refer to github.com/backstage ...
- ./artifacts/rhdh-plugins-reference/ocm/ocm-backend-plugin-readme.adoc
- ./artifacts/rhdh-plugins-reference/ocm/ocm-common-plugin-readme.adoc
- ./modules/customizing-the-home-page/proc-customizing-the-home-page-cards.adoc
- ./modules/dynamic-plugins/ref-example-third-party-plugin-installation.adoc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Support team has acked linking to GH repos under the Developer and OpenShift GH orgs. Since the above link is in the Dev GH repo it should be ok @jmagak
@rm3l in the airgap docs, did we get an ack from the support team to refer to this link - https://github.com/containers/skopeo/blob/main/install.md ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in the airgap docs, did we get an ack from the support team to refer to this link - containers/skopeo@main/install.md ?
Not sure about an explicit ack... Checking, but I am confused now, as there are multiple external links for example to the AWS docs (here), Microsoft docs (here), GKE docs (here), with further details on how to install some tools like the aws, aks or gcloud CLIs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Preeticp I've asked for clarification on #rhdh-support.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rm3l @nickboldt @jmagak @Preeticp rather than a link to a page about what configuration profiles are, what I think would be more helpful for the user is to know what the additional profiles are, why they have been added, and how the user can benefit from the addition. Any reason why we aren't sharing that info?
release notes are generated using JIRA as the single source of truth. Please apply your changes in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHIDP-3621 then run this script: If you apply these changes and then we release a 1.4.2 security / bug fix update, your changes will be overwritten by the above script. So it's 100% better to use JIRA release note text fields for the contents of the release notes. |
|
Regenerated from JIRA release note text fields and pushed the changes into your PR. If that reverted your requested changes, please apply them in JIRA and I can re-run the Here's my changes (with whitespace / line ending changes ignored): |
Could you please re-run the script again? @nickboldt It appears that some texts are modified differently when the script is run. |
jmagak
force-pushed
the
RHIDP-5458-Fix-Release-Notes-1.4-New-Features-Links
branch
from
6bc66e9 to
4a8f61e
Compare
Hi @nickboldt , I ran the script and this PR should be in sync with those from your end. |
That is a great suggestion, as well as wonderful questions you have raised, @linfraze . I trust that a summary of the content in the link, rather than linking the entire document, might suffice in this case. My question, however, is where to draw the line on what to highlight from the upstream document, especially if we want to avoid leaving the user searching for additional content from where they cannot access. |
…d apply minor formatting changes Signed-off-by: Nick Boldt <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
RN status for https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHIDP-4780 should be changed to exclude this item from the RN regeneration script at https://github.com/redhat-developer/red-hat-developers-documentation-rhdh/blob/release-1.4/modules/release-notes/single-source-release-notes.py
|
|
||
|
|
||
| [id="feature-rhidp-4780"] | ||
| == [Docs] Document per-ConfigMap/Secret configuration of mountPath |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this item is new after regenerating. See https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHIDP-4780 for the weirdly formatted release note text field. cc: @pabel-rh
Perhaps the Release Note Status should be Rejected ?
As we already have these:
IMPORTANT: Do Not Merge - To be merged by Docs Team Only
Version(s): 1.4
Add the relevant labels to the Pull Request.
Issue: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHIDP-5458