add current profile annotations to CVO manifests

[guillaumerose]

This is matches openshift/enhancements#414 and doesn't change existing behavior

[andfasano]

Hi @guillaumerose I have a question: the enhancement proposes that manifests must contain at least one inclusion annotation, and the default profile is self-managed-highly-available. I was looking for a more formal definition in the enh proposal for self-managed-highly-available but didn't found anything (except for this). Do you have any link with additional info and/or can clarify? Thanks

[guillaumerose]

Hi @andfaso. The naming discussion started in this comment openshift/enhancements#414 (comment). I don't have much than this thread. The main point is that they prefer explicit over implicit inclusion and default as a name was not really a good name.
This change is also tracked here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871890

[andfasano]

Hi @andfaso. The naming discussion started in this comment openshift/enhancements#414 (comment). I don't have much than this thread. The main point is that they prefer explicit over implicit inclusion and default as a name was not really a good name.
This change is also tracked here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871890

Thanks. Some of the existing resources already had an exclusion profile define (exclude.release.openshift.io/internal-openshift-hosted: "true"), do you maybe have any idea if it's ok to have both the exclusion and inclusion annotations set (I think so)?

[dhellmann]

Hi @andfaso. The naming discussion started in this comment openshift/enhancements#414 (comment). I don't have much than this thread. The main point is that they prefer explicit over implicit inclusion and default as a name was not really a good name.
This change is also tracked here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871890

Thanks. Some of the existing resources already had an exclusion profile define (exclude.release.openshift.io/internal-openshift-hosted: "true"), do you maybe have any idea if it's ok to have both the exclusion and inclusion annotations set (I think so)?

Yes, it should be fine. Only the annotation for the profile being used is examined. See https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/blob/master/enhancements/update/cluster-profiles.md for details.

/approve

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dhellmann, guillaumerose

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

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [dhellmann]

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

[sadasu]

/lgtm