[ECK 3.3] - Update Stack Config Policies release documentation

[pkoutsovasilis]

Summary

This change updates the documentation for the upcoming ECK 3.3 release for Stack Config Policies.

Generative AI disclosure

1. Did you use a generative AI (GenAI) tool to assist in creating this contribution?

• Yes
• No

Tool(s) and model(s) used:
Cursor/Auto

[github-actions]

Vale Linting Results

Summary: 2 warnings found

⚠️ Warnings (2)

File	Line	Rule	Message
deploy-manage/deploy/cloud-on-k8s/elastic-stack-configuration-policies.md	345	Elastic.Latinisms	Latin terms and abbreviations are a common source of confusion. Use 'for example' instead of 'e.g'.
deploy-manage/deploy/cloud-on-k8s/elastic-stack-configuration-policies.md	346	Elastic.Latinisms	Latin terms and abbreviations are a common source of confusion. Use 'for example' instead of 'e.g'.

---

The Vale linter checks documentation changes against the Elastic Docs style guide.

To use Vale locally or report issues, refer to Elastic style guide for Vale.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the Stack Config Policies documentation for the ECK 3.3 release, introducing support for multiple policies targeting the same resource through a weight-based priority system.

Changes:

• Added documentation for the new weight field that enables policy priority when multiple policies target the same Elasticsearch cluster or Kibana instance
• Included scale considerations and performance recommendations for managing multiple Stack Config Policy resources
• Provided examples demonstrating policy hierarchies and conflict resolution through weight values

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[github-actions]

🔍 Preview links for changed docs

• deploy-manage/deploy/cloud-on-k8s/elastic-stack-configuration-policies.md

[eedugon]

Looks great! I added two small wording-related suggestions and a comment about the weight field, which maybe it's good to specify that it's only available in 3.3.0+.

Maybe @shainaraskas has a nice suggestion for that considering that we have recently updated the applies_to functionality.

Anyway nothing blocking.

[shainaraskas]

As @eedugon mentioned, we should be more explicit about the weight feature being introduced in 3.3. I've also provided some light content feedback (sorry if it overlaps any of edu's feedback) and suggest you remove the duplicative example for prioritization

[pebrc]

LGTM

[eedugon]

Latest changes look great, thanks!

One note: if we merge this now to main the new 3.3 functionality will appear as ECK: planned when rendering the docs.

That's not an issue but maybe you want to merge this towards the eck-3.3.0 branch that already exists in the repo, or wait until 3.3.0 is released before merging.

[pebrc]

Latest changes look great, thanks!

One note: if we merge this now to main the new 3.3 functionality will appear as ECK: planned when rendering the docs.

That's not an issue but maybe you want to merge this towards the eck-3.3.0 branch that already exists in the repo, or wait until 3.3.0 is released before merging.

+1 to changing the merge target to eck-3.3.0

[pkoutsovasilis]

thanks for catching that @eedugon and @pebrc , I will rework my commits to have a proper PR targeting eck-3.3.0 base