rhn-support-mrussell about the cloning - is there a process I should follow?

I think it should.

Any automated process to follow? or just to clone this ticket?

Should this be cloned into a GA card? 

This will make it in 4.16.

augol from the QE side, are we clear? Any remaining work?

chezhang@redhat.com rhn-support-rioliu Please assign a QA contact for this epic.

A hypothetical example might look like this.

apiVersion: machineconfiguration.openshift.io/v1
kind: PinnedImageSet
metadata:
 name: ensure-workload
spec:
 machineConfigPoolSelector:
    matchLabels:
      pools.operator.machineconfiguration.openshift.io/worker: ""
 pinnedImages:
   - quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-v4.0-art-dev@sha256:7aa95f32af51fc7892546a1e028808ec1bab1e507cf671b88d8280d2521e61d6
   - quay.io/openshift-release-dev/ocp-v4.0-art-dev@sha256:d98ddbe73bda2ffed4d1aeb52be0500b8f8fe870cb465a8bb0cb113f7ed5ade3 

> would this allow a customer who had a critical application, even in a non-disconnected cluster to leverage the pin/pre-load process to ensure that, in the case of a registry outage, their application could continue to function?

My understanding is if the image has been prefetched and or the image exists already on the node and proper imagePullPolicy is defined that it should work. In this case, the CU would define the workload on a node pool level. IE worker. Then anytime that workload is scheduled to a worker node it would work regardless of registry status as the image already exists thus should not require additional work by kubelet/CRI-O.

Subtasks have been fleshed out and updated.

The MCO PR[1] reflects the current status of this work. At this point, no major blocking issues exist and we are moving into testing and review.

 [1]https://github.com/openshift/machine-config-operator/pull/4094

rh-ee-sbatsche any updates on the progress?

Syncing with MCO team today to finalize last outstanding issues. Will update status here after that call.

Thanks Sohan! For now, I have assigned that story to you. Feel free to reassign to other team members based on who will be working on the implementation.

rhn-engineering-skumari I don't think this feature is prioritized in cri-o for 4.16
pehunt@redhat.com do you have any insights on this?

Edit:
I added a story attached to this epic after discussing it with pehunt@redhat.com 

skunkerk Do you know if functionality listed in the first bullet i.e. "CRI-O will need to be changed so that it doesn't remove pinned images, regardless of the version_file_persist setting" is targeted in cri-o for 4.16 timeframe?

julim 

Yes, we are still "in planning" but it is considered a priority issue for 4.16.

CC rhn-engineering-skumari rhn-support-mrussell lmohanty@redhat.com jhernand-rh