OLM channels explanation

[pavolloffay]

Description of the change:

Motivation for the change:

Architectural changes:

Testing remarks:

Reviewer Checklist

• Implementation matches the proposed design, or proposal is updated to match implementation
• Sufficient unit test coverage
• Sufficient end-to-end test coverage
• Bug fixes are accompanied by regression test(s)
• e2e tests and flake fixes are accompanied evidence of flake testing, e.g. executing the test 100(0) times
• tech debt/todo is accompanied by issue link(s) in comments in the surrounding code
• Tests are comprehensible, e.g. Ginkgo DSL is being used appropriately
• Docs updated or added to /doc
• Commit messages sensible and descriptive
• Tests marked as [FLAKE] are truly flaky and have an issue
• Code is properly formatted

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign joelanford for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-ci]

Hi @pavolloffay. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a operator-framework member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Tip

We noticed you've done this a few times! Consider joining the org to skip this step and gain /lgtm and other bot rights. We recommend asking approvers on your previous PRs to sponsor you.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[Copilot]

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

[jcantrill]

Is this correct? I thought the subscription required you to explicitly define the catalog source?

[jcantrill]

I think it is worth defining what this means other than a just a header

[jcantrill]

Our experience in logging is that we should also produce a versioned stable channel (i.e. stable-6.2). Maybe this is born out of releases before we were mandated to identify an EUS release, but we have had customer's that configure automated updates but do not wish to jump Y streams. The caveat here is they are unable to ride the stable channel and expect auto upgrades.

[jcantrill]

To clarify, you are defining the 'stable' channel as the stream that has EUS releases. I think this is fine since we have never really had a definition of stable but I have concerns which are those listed in my previous comment.