Update and standardise admonitions

[craigbox]

What type of PR is this?

/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

Update admonitions to correctly reflect API changes in 1.2.0, as well as fixing a bunch that were never updated in the past.

Standardize markup and wording throughout.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @craigbox. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[kflynn]

Hey @craigbox! Despite the number of nits I left here, I definitely appreciate you diving in here -- many thanks!

I think your general take on using "since vX.Y.Z" instead of "in vX.Y.Z+" is good. I stopped adding suggested changes when I realized how many there are (🤦‍♂️) but I would love to see that change throughout all this stuff.

Also, we're apparently inconsistent about whether to link to the "for more info on release channels" bit – I think it would be good to make things consistent there too? Open to other suggestions though.

And again, thanks! Much-needed work here. 🙂

[craigbox]

I think your general take on using "since vX.Y.Z" instead of "in vX.Y.Z+" is good.

It looked like the standard (the stable? 😳) was to use "in vX+" in headings and "since vX" in body. Happy to standardise on "since" throughout if you prefer.

[robscott]

Thanks @craigbox! No strong preference between "since" and "in Vx+" as long as we're being consistent across the admonitions. Also "standard" was ironically the word we used to reserve "stable" for a future more stable channel, and then "standard" effectively became the "stable" channel 🙃.

/ok-to-test
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: craigbox, robscott

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• site-src/OWNERS [robscott]

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

[craigbox]

I would love to see that change throughout all this stuff.

Done!

"for more info on release channels" bit – I think it would be good to make things consistent there too? Open to other suggestions though.

Also done!

[robscott]

I'm not sure who introduced v1.2 here, but it wasn't you. I'll file a follow up PR to fix this.

[craigbox]

Agg, I fixed at least one of these. Sorry to miss this one.

[robscott]

Thanks @craigbox!

/lgtm