OSDOCS#13261: Update the 4.12.72 z-stream RNs

[tmalove]

Version(s):
4.12

Issue:
OSDOCS-12361

Link to docs preview:
4.12.72

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.
  QE review is not required for z-stream RNs.

Additional information:
The errata URLs will return 404 until the go-live date of 02/06/25.

[tmalove]

/label branch/enterprise-4.12

[openshift-ci]

@tmalove: The label(s) /label branch/enterprise-4.12 cannot be applied. These labels are supported: acknowledge-critical-fixes-only, platform/aws, platform/azure, platform/baremetal, platform/google, platform/libvirt, platform/openstack, ga, tide/merge-method-merge, tide/merge-method-rebase, tide/merge-method-squash, px-approved, docs-approved, qe-approved, no-qe, downstream-change-needed, rebase/manual, cluster-config-api-changed, approved, backport-risk-assessed, bugzilla/valid-bug, cherry-pick-approved, cloud-experts, cnv, dev-tools, distributed-tracing, ims, jira/valid-bug, merge-review-in-progress, merge-review-needed, mtc, multi-arch, oadp, peer-review-done, peer-review-in-progress, peer-review-needed, rhacs, rhv, sd-docs, serverless, service-mesh, sme-review-done, sme-review-needed, staff-eng-approved, telco. Is this label configured under labels -> additional_labels or labels -> restricted_labels in plugin.yaml?

In response to this:

/label branch/enterprise-4.12

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-sigs/prow repository.

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Wed Feb 05 01:07:19 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://87975--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/release_notes/ocp-4-12-release-notes.html

[tmalove]

/label peer-review-needed

[eromanova97]

/remove-label peer-review-needed

/label peer-review-in-progress

[eromanova97]

Leaving one comment, otherwise looks good to me.
However, as I am new to peer review squad, please wait for @dfitzmau to review again and for the peer-review-done label before proceeding. Thank you!

[eromanova97]

Regarding this part:
... triggered alerts that demanded urgent action, but in this case, intervention was only required for a short period of time until the node rebooted.
upon the first reading, it sounded to me as if the urgent action was necessarry, however there was not enough time to react. But when reading the Jira description, I realised it is the opposite, and that we do not need admins to take action. Because of that, I would concider changing the wording a little bit.

I am also trying here to get rid of the repetition and some words to make it more concise, plus I think mentioning that a `Ready=Unknown is entered only for a short period of time is unnecessarry, as I believe it is not the main focus of the issue here. But, of course, I stand corrected if I misunderstood. 👍

Suggested change

* Previously, during node reboots, especially during update operations, the node that interacts with the rebooting machine entered a `Ready=Unknown` state for a short amount of time. This situation caused the Control Plane Machine Set Operator to enter an `UnavailableReplicas` condition and then an `Available=false` state. The `Available=false` state triggered alerts that demanded urgent action, but in this case, intervention was only required for a short period of time until the node rebooted. With this release, a grace period for node unreadiness is provided so if a node enters an unready state, the Control Plane Machine Set Operator does not instantly enter an `UnavailableReplicas` condition or an `Available=false` state. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-48325[*OCPBUGS-48325*]).

* Previously, during node reboots, especially during update operations, the node that interacted with the rebooting machine entered a `Ready=Unknown` state. This caused the Control Plane Machine Set Operator to enter an `UnavailableReplicas` condition and an `Available=false` state, which triggered alerts that demanded urgent action. However, manual intervention was not necessary because the condition was resolved when the node rebooted. With this release, a grace period for node unreadiness is provided. Therefore, if a node enters an unready state, the Control Plane Machine Set Operator does not instantly enter an `UnavailableReplicas` condition or an `Available=false` state. (link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-48325[*OCPBUGS-48325*]).

[dfitzmau]

Good suggestions, @eromanova97 . I'd drop "Therefore" to cut down on transitional phrases. The original sentence seems to suggest that a short window of time was available for manual intervention (until the node rebooted). I agree with cutting down on repetition.

[openshift-ci]

@tmalove: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[tmalove]

/label merge-review-needed