OSDOCS-20668: Fix product name in Helm CLI release note

[jseseCCS]

Version(s): 4.22

Issue: https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OSDOCS-20668

Link to docs preview:

QE review: 2 engineers and product manager approved. Recently this has been sufficient for a "QE" review.

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jseseCCS: This pull request references OSDOCS-20668 which is a valid jira issue.

Details

In response to this:

Version(s): 4.22

Issue: https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/OSDOCS-20668

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Thu Jul 16 19:24:37 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://115363--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/release_notes/ocp-4-22-release-notes.html

[jseseCCS]

@mkumku thanks for your review and comments! I made the update this time, but I need to flag something for going forward: After a release note has been through review and approved, we should reserve off-cycle changes for things that are genuinely new or have changed since release (behavior update, something that's since become inaccurate, etc.) rather than edits to content that was already signed off on.

If something comes up post-release that falls into the "missed in review" bucket and not the "actually changed" bucket, we should queue it for the next content review cycle instead.

Just want to make sure we've got a consistent process as this comes up more. Thanks for understanding.

cc @opayne1

[mkumku]

@mkumku thanks for your review and comments! I made the update this time, but I need to flag something for going forward: After a release note has been through review and approved, we should reserve off-cycle changes for things that are genuinely new or have changed since release (behavior update, something that's since become inaccurate, etc.) rather than edits to content that was already signed off on.

If something comes up post-release that falls into the "missed in review" bucket and not the "actually changed" bucket, we should queue it for the next content review cycle instead.

Just want to make sure we've got a consistent process as this comes up more. Thanks for understanding.

cc @opayne1

Completely understood. I don't know why I missed the review - I think I was on PTO while this was happening. Apologies about this. And this is a new product and a new product name, probably needed more attention from me to confirm the final text past the text provided in the jira.

[sowmya-sl]

/lgtm

[webbnh]

I just have one suggestion; otherwise...

/lgtm

[webbnh]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

@jseseCCS: 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.

[mkumku]

LGTM. Thank you!

[jseseCCS]

/label merge-review-needed

[jseseCCS]

Note to Merge Reviewer: This has @opayne1 's OK for publishing this now after SME and QE approvals.

[jseseCCS]

@mburke5678 thank you!!