NUMA: Remove FG precondition and add v1.4 GA note

[lyarwood]

What this PR does / why we need it:

FG GA'd by the following PR kubevirt/kubevirt#12232

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist

This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR.
Approvers are expected to review this list.

• Design: A design document was considered and is present (link) or not required
• PR: The PR description is expressive enough and will help future contributors
• Code: Write code that humans can understand and Keep it simple
• Refactor: You have left the code cleaner than you found it (Boy Scout Rule)
• Upgrade: Impact of this change on upgrade flows was considered and addressed if required
• Testing: New code requires new unit tests. New features and bug fixes require at least on e2e test
• Documentation: A user-guide update was considered and is present (link) or not required. You want a user-guide update if it's a user facing feature / API change.
• Community: Announcement to kubevirt-dev was considered

Release note:

NONE

[kubevirt-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign jean-edouard for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• docs/compute/OWNERS

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

[aburdenthehand]

Thanks @lyarwood
I can't comment on this line but: Opening para "NUMA support in KubeVirt is at this stage limited to a small set of special use-cases and will improve over time together with improvements made to
Kubernetes."
Is that still true or has it improved since it was introduced?

[aburdenthehand]

Should this be in place of line 3?

[lyarwood]

I wanted to retain the history of the feature thus the additional block.

We've not introduced any additional strategies yet but the existing functionality is mature enough that it doesn't require the feature gate anymore.

[lyarwood]

Thanks @lyarwood I can't comment on this line but: Opening para "NUMA support in KubeVirt is at this stage limited to a small set of special use-cases and will improve over time together with improvements made to Kubernetes." Is that still true or has it improved since it was introduced?

That's still true, the decision to graduate feature gate however is more about maturity of the existing functionality. This original comment is still accurate and I think is still useful context in the docs.

[lyarwood]

I wanted to retain the history of the feature thus the additional block.

We've not introduced any additional strategies yet but the existing functionality is mature enough that it doesn't require the feature gate anymore.