Remove some ancient release notes and migration docs

[johngmyers]

No description provided.

[johngmyers]

/area documentation

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: johngmyers
To complete the pull request process, please assign granular-ryanbonham
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @granular-ryanbonham in a comment when ready.

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

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

[johngmyers]

/retest

[mikesplain]

I personally think we shouldn't be removing those release notes. K/K doesn't so why should we? I'm fine with removing some of the other files but I think the history is important here. Most open source projects keep their release notes in some form in perpetuity, I'm not sure why we should be any different.

[johngmyers]

The Calico CIDR migration docs are linked to by the 1.7 release notes, so we either maintain them (including the script that fails shellcheck), we have a dead link, or we remove the old release notes.

People can research ancient history by going back in the git logs. I don't think we should spend effort maintaining these ancient, obsolete documents.

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[olemarkus]

I vote for removing old migration docs. K8s docs are versioned so it is not comparable to our docs. Should we start using versioned docs as well in the future, those old migration docs and scripts will resurface.

Related: #9107

/lgtm

[hakman]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[johngmyers]

/assign @granular-ryanbonham

[hakman]

/assign @rifelpet

[rifelpet]

I'm a bit torn on this. On one side, k/k keeps all changelogs in their master branch. On the other side, many open source projects truncate their changelogs, either to the most recent major version or something like what this PR is doing, and the changelogs still exist in git history.

What exactly do we gain by deleting them? not spend time fixing broken links? Anything else?

[johngmyers]

We wouldn't have to maintain obsolete docs, such as those for the Calico CIDR migration, that are referenced by obsolete release notes.

Also, these early release notes aren't named consistently.

[k8s-ci-robot]

@johngmyers: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Rerun command
pull-kops-e2e-k8s-containerd	bd9c011	link	/test pull-kops-e2e-k8s-containerd

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[k8s-ci-robot]

@johngmyers: PR needs rebase.

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/test-infra repository.

[hakman]

@johngmyers Now that #9770 was merged, should this be closed?

[johngmyers]

Closing