[OSDOCS-19466]: HCP 4.22 release notes by lahinson · Pull Request #111208 · openshift/openshift-docs

lahinson · 2026-05-04T20:35:32Z

Version(s): 4.22+

Issue: https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OSDOCS-19466

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

QE has approved this change.

Additional information: Fixed issues were generated by Renoa, reviewed and approved by SMEs, and reviewed by QE (with the help of Claude)

Merge reviewers: I can handle the merge and CP. Thanks!

ocpdocs-previewbot · 2026-05-04T20:43:07Z

🤖 Fri May 15 15:00:57 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://111208--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/hosted_control_planes/hcp-release-notes.html

openshift-ci · 2026-05-15T15:02:26Z

@lahinson: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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.

mburke5678 · 2026-05-15T22:06:50Z

+
+* Before this update, the ignition server deployment computed registry overrides by performing live HTTP registry connectivity checks (`LookupMappedImage/GetMetadata`) during every Control Plane Operator reconciliation. As a consequence, network conditions caused the `--registry-overrides` argument and `MIRRORED_RELEASE_IMAGE` environment variable to return different values on each reconciliation, triggering constant deployment regenerations and pod restarts. With this update, the ignition server deployment uses the static registry overrides from the `HostedCluster` specification instead of performing live registry lookups at deploy time. The ignition server already resolves per-image mirrors at runtime by using its own override logic. As a result, ignition server deployments remain stable with consistent configuration, eliminating unnecessary pod restarts. (link:https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OCPBUGS-60185[OCPBUGS-60185])
+
+* Before this update, when you created a hosted cluster that used a `NodePort` publishing strategy, specifying a port outside the Kubernetes service node port range, such as `10000`, was silently accepted during cluster creation. As a consequence, the cluster installation got stuck with only 3 pods in the hosted cluster namespace, because the Control Plane Operator rejected the port for being outside the acceptable range of `30000` - `32767`, causing a late failure after resources were already provisioned. With this release, early validation is added for the `NodePort.Port` value against the configured `ServiceNodePortRange` parameter of the cluster. Invalid values are rejected upfront with a clear message indicating the allowed range. As a result, you receive an immediate validation error when you specify a `NodePort` that is outside the acceptable range, and avoid stuck cluster installations. (link:https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OCPBUGS-65824[OCPBUGS-65842])


@lahinson I believe this bug text is repeated. Not enough to block the merge, as far a I am concerned. Feel free to address in a separate PR.

Also:

Suggested change

* Before this update, when you created a hosted cluster that used a `NodePort` publishing strategy, specifying a port outside the Kubernetes service node port range, such as `10000`, was silently accepted during cluster creation. As a consequence, the cluster installation got stuck with only 3 pods in the hosted cluster namespace, because the Control Plane Operator rejected the port for being outside the acceptable range of `30000` - `32767`, causing a late failure after resources were already provisioned. With this release, early validation is added for the `NodePort.Port` value against the configured `ServiceNodePortRange` parameter of the cluster. Invalid values are rejected upfront with a clear message indicating the allowed range. As a result, you receive an immediate validation error when you specify a `NodePort` that is outside the acceptable range, and avoid stuck cluster installations. (link:https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OCPBUGS-65824[OCPBUGS-65842])

* Before this update, when you created a hosted cluster that used a `NodePort` publishing strategy, specifying a port outside the Kubernetes service node port range, such as `10000`, was silently accepted during cluster creation. As a consequence, the cluster installation got stuck with only 3 pods in the hosted cluster namespace, because the Control Plane Operator rejected the port for being outside the acceptable range of `30000` - `32767`, causing a late failure after resources were already provisioned. With this release, early validation is added for the `NodePort.Port` value against the configured `ServiceNodePortRange` parameter of the cluster. Invalid values are rejected upfront with a clear message indicating the allowed range. As a result, you receive an immediate validation error when you specify a `NodePort` that is outside the acceptable range, and avoid stuck cluster installations. (link:https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OCPBUGS-65824[OCPBUGS-65824])

Good catch, will fix

mburke5678 · 2026-05-15T22:18:14Z

 |General Availability
 |General Availability
-|===
+|General Availability


Should we drop this one from the table, as it is GA in all three columns?

I think so? I couldn't remember what the "rule" was. 4.22 will be the 3rd release where this one is GA -- does that mean I remove it from the TP table?

@lahinson There seem to be several features in the tech preview tables that have GA three across. For example. Maybe for the next release they get dropped?

@mburke5678 Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the sanity check!

mburke5678 · 2026-05-15T22:19:44Z

+|Not Available
+|Technology Preview
+|===
+. {hcp-capital} for {VirtProductName} on {ibm-z-title} is supported as Technology Preview starting with {product-title} 4.21, {mce} 2.11, and {rh-rhacm-first} 2.16. Creating {hcp} with external infrastructure is not supported.


Maybe?

Suggested change

. {hcp-capital} for {VirtProductName} on {ibm-z-title} is supported as Technology Preview starting with {product-title} 4.21, {mce} 2.11, and {rh-rhacm-first} 2.16. Creating {hcp} with external infrastructure is not supported.

. {hcp-capital} for {VirtProductName} on {ibm-z-title} is supported as Technology Preview starting with {mce} 2.11 and {rh-rhacm-first} 2.16. Creating {hcp} with external infrastructure is not supported.

This text came from QE, so I'd like to keep it as is.

mburke5678 · 2026-05-15T22:20:29Z

@lahinson A couple of suggestions that could be addressed in a separate PR, if you want. Otherwise LGTM

mburke5678 · 2026-05-15T22:21:13Z

/cherrypick enterprise-4.22

openshift-cherrypick-robot · 2026-05-15T22:22:03Z

@mburke5678: #111208 failed to apply on top of branch "enterprise-4.22":

Applying: HCP 4.22 release notes
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	hosted_control_planes/hcp-release-notes.adoc
M	modules/hcp-release-notes-fixed-issues.adoc
M	modules/hcp-release-notes-notable-changes.adoc
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging modules/hcp-release-notes-notable-changes.adoc
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in modules/hcp-release-notes-notable-changes.adoc
Auto-merging modules/hcp-release-notes-fixed-issues.adoc
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in modules/hcp-release-notes-fixed-issues.adoc
Auto-merging hosted_control_planes/hcp-release-notes.adoc
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in hosted_control_planes/hcp-release-notes.adoc
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
hint: When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
hint: If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
hint: To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
hint: Disable this message with "git config set advice.mergeConflict false"
Patch failed at 0001 HCP 4.22 release notes

Details

In response to this:

/cherrypick enterprise-4.22

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.

openshift-ci Bot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 4, 2026

lahinson added the branch/enterprise-4.22 label May 4, 2026

lahinson added this to the Planned for 4.22 GA milestone May 4, 2026

lahinson force-pushed the osdocs-19466-hcp-4.22-rns branch 6 times, most recently from e9cc95d to 72d5b4f Compare May 11, 2026 16:51

lahinson force-pushed the osdocs-19466-hcp-4.22-rns branch 4 times, most recently from 91333c9 to a8dd1a0 Compare May 13, 2026 14:49

ocpdocs-vale-bot reviewed May 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread modules/hcp-release-notes-notable-changes.adoc Outdated

lahinson force-pushed the osdocs-19466-hcp-4.22-rns branch 4 times, most recently from 8864c86 to e04e3ba Compare May 13, 2026 16:01

ocpdocs-vale-bot reviewed May 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread modules/hcp-release-notes-fixed-issues.adoc Outdated

ocpdocs-vale-bot reviewed May 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread modules/hcp-release-notes-fixed-issues.adoc Outdated

lahinson force-pushed the osdocs-19466-hcp-4.22-rns branch from e04e3ba to 1afc9bc Compare May 13, 2026 16:36

mgencur reviewed May 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread modules/hcp-release-notes-fixed-issues.adoc Outdated

lahinson force-pushed the osdocs-19466-hcp-4.22-rns branch 5 times, most recently from 53b003f to d2f101f Compare May 14, 2026 18:56

lahinson added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 14, 2026

lahinson force-pushed the osdocs-19466-hcp-4.22-rns branch from d2f101f to a24dd3b Compare May 15, 2026 14:48

lahinson force-pushed the osdocs-19466-hcp-4.22-rns branch from a24dd3b to bbf0c46 Compare May 15, 2026 14:50

[OSDOCS-19466]: HCP 4.22 release notes

3e466c9

lahinson force-pushed the osdocs-19466-hcp-4.22-rns branch from bbf0c46 to 3e466c9 Compare May 15, 2026 14:52

lahinson added the merge-review-needed Signifies that the merge review team needs to review this PR label May 15, 2026

mburke5678 reviewed May 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

mburke5678 merged commit 3e85ac5 into openshift:main May 15, 2026
2 checks passed

mburke5678 added merge-review-in-progress Signifies that the merge review team is reviewing this PR and removed merge-review-in-progress Signifies that the merge review team is reviewing this PR merge-review-needed Signifies that the merge review team needs to review this PR labels May 15, 2026

lahinson mentioned this pull request May 18, 2026

[enterprise-4.22][OSDOCS-19466]: HCP 4.22 release notes #111819

Merged

lahinson mentioned this pull request May 27, 2026

[OSDOCS-19906]: Adding a few more fixed issues to the HCP 4.22 RNs #112348

Open

1 task


		* Before this update, the ignition server deployment computed registry overrides by performing live HTTP registry connectivity checks (`LookupMappedImage/GetMetadata`) during every Control Plane Operator reconciliation. As a consequence, network conditions caused the `--registry-overrides` argument and `MIRRORED_RELEASE_IMAGE` environment variable to return different values on each reconciliation, triggering constant deployment regenerations and pod restarts. With this update, the ignition server deployment uses the static registry overrides from the `HostedCluster` specification instead of performing live registry lookups at deploy time. The ignition server already resolves per-image mirrors at runtime by using its own override logic. As a result, ignition server deployments remain stable with consistent configuration, eliminating unnecessary pod restarts. (link:https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OCPBUGS-60185[OCPBUGS-60185])

		* Before this update, when you created a hosted cluster that used a `NodePort` publishing strategy, specifying a port outside the Kubernetes service node port range, such as `10000`, was silently accepted during cluster creation. As a consequence, the cluster installation got stuck with only 3 pods in the hosted cluster namespace, because the Control Plane Operator rejected the port for being outside the acceptable range of `30000` - `32767`, causing a late failure after resources were already provisioned. With this release, early validation is added for the `NodePort.Port` value against the configured `ServiceNodePortRange` parameter of the cluster. Invalid values are rejected upfront with a clear message indicating the allowed range. As a result, you receive an immediate validation error when you specify a `NodePort` that is outside the acceptable range, and avoid stuck cluster installations. (link:https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OCPBUGS-65824[OCPBUGS-65842])

	. {hcp-capital} for {VirtProductName} on {ibm-z-title} is supported as Technology Preview starting with {product-title} 4.21, {mce} 2.11, and {rh-rhacm-first} 2.16. Creating {hcp} with external infrastructure is not supported.
	. {hcp-capital} for {VirtProductName} on {ibm-z-title} is supported as Technology Preview starting with {mce} 2.11 and {rh-rhacm-first} 2.16. Creating {hcp} with external infrastructure is not supported.

Conversation

lahinson commented May 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ocpdocs-previewbot commented May 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openshift-ci Bot commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

mburke5678 May 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lahinson May 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mburke5678 May 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lahinson May 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mburke5678 May 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lahinson May 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mburke5678 May 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lahinson May 18, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mburke5678 commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mburke5678 commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

openshift-cherrypick-robot commented May 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

lahinson commented May 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ocpdocs-previewbot commented May 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mburke5678 May 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading