| Summary: | [DOCS] [sme] Bad example for running the deployer template | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Peter Larsen <plarsen> |
| Component: | Documentation | Assignee: | brice <bfallonf> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Vikram Goyal <vigoyal> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | Vikram Goyal <vigoyal> |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 3.1.0 | CC: | aos-bugs, jokerman, mmccomas, plarsen |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-08-08 23:49:24 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Peter Larsen
2016-01-28 21:37:20 UTC
Paul, I've submitted a PR for this: https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/2100 Can I get an ack that this fulfills the BZ request here? Thanks! (In reply to brice from comment #1) > Paul, If this was targeted me, sorry for being a bit late on a response here. > I've submitted a PR for this: > > https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/2100 Yes - it removes the confusion about "localhost". However, I thought "oc create" had been replaced with "oc apply" so it would work on updates too? I don't believe there's a special chapter for upgrading EFK - so using a command that works for both uses cases would probably be best? > Can I get an ack that this fulfills the BZ request here? From the localhost perspective, yeah this works fine. > Thanks! (In reply to Peter Larsen from comment #4) > Yes - it removes the confusion about "localhost". > However, I thought "oc create" had been replaced with "oc apply" so it would > work on updates too? Since my initial PR there's been a update to the section in the 3.2 docs. After a rebase, it now uses oc new-app instead of oc process. Is that what you mean? > I don't believe there's a special chapter for upgrading EFK - so using a > command that works for both uses cases would probably be best? There is a section actually: 3.1 https://docs.openshift.com/enterprise/3.1/install_config/upgrading/manual_upgrades.html#manual-upgrading-efk-logging-stack 3.2 https://docs.openshift.com/enterprise/3.2/install_config/upgrading/manual_upgrades.html#manual-upgrading-efk-logging-stack However, I'm not sure what you mean about both use cases. Is what's in the section adequate? > > Can I get an ack that this fulfills the BZ request here? > > > From the localhost perspective, yeah this works fine. Cool! > > Thanks! (In reply to brice from comment #6) Brice - sorry I didn't see your response until now :( > (In reply to Peter Larsen from comment #4) > > Yes - it removes the confusion about "localhost". > > However, I thought "oc create" had been replaced with "oc apply" so it would > > work on updates too? > > Since my initial PR there's been a update to the section in the 3.2 docs. > After a rebase, it now uses oc new-app instead of oc process. Is that what > you mean? Yeah - because I saw it fixed, I guess this bug got pushed out of mind here. You're quite right. Let's just close this case as solved. Sure thing. Thanks a bunch, Peter! Closing this. The work has already been done and in the links above. |