Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Document pmpu APIs as stabilised #8112

Open
yonipeleg33 opened this issue Aug 29, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

Document pmpu APIs as stabilised #8112

yonipeleg33 opened this issue Aug 29, 2024 · 7 comments
Labels
docs Improvements or additions to documentation

Comments

@yonipeleg33
Copy link
Contributor

yonipeleg33 commented Aug 29, 2024

Following up on #8103, and the subsequent discussion in #8108 - it appears that the pmpu APIs are already stable, but still tagged as "experimental".

The correct way to resolve this is by removing the experimental tag and documenting them properly (in docs/).
cc @talSofer

@yonipeleg33 yonipeleg33 added the docs Improvements or additions to documentation label Aug 29, 2024
@N-o-Z
Copy link
Member

N-o-Z commented Aug 29, 2024

@yonipeleg33, it's not experimental - the tag was left there and should have been removed earlier.
Can you please specify what stabilizing means? Is the API flaky? Do we have a bug? I think you might be using the wrong terminology

@yonipeleg33
Copy link
Contributor Author

You're probably right, I meant only in the documentation level - removing the "experimental" tag, and adding proper documentation, following up on @arielshaqed's comment: #8108 (comment)

My intent with the original PR was fixing a technical "bug" in the documentation, but as it turned out, it is more big of a deal than I originally thought, so after discussing privately with @talSofer I decided to open a new issue for it and triage-ing it properly...

@yonipeleg33 yonipeleg33 changed the title Stabilise pmpu APIs Document pmpu APIs as stabilised Aug 29, 2024
@yonipeleg33
Copy link
Contributor Author

@N-o-Z I have updated the title and description, lmk if that's any better

@N-o-Z
Copy link
Member

N-o-Z commented Aug 29, 2024

@N-o-Z I have updated the title and description, lmk if that's any better

Great! Thank you for clarifying

@Isan-Rivkin
Copy link
Contributor

@N-o-Z why was this experimental in the first place? What changed since then? Is there full support for all Cloud vendors?
@arielshaqed - maybe you can shed more context on why was this experimental?

@arielshaqed
Copy link
Contributor

@treeverse/product / @talSofer / @ozkatz happy for your input whether we should make it non-experimental.

AFAIK this works only for S3... but the "AF" in "AFAIK" is doing some heavy lifting, I don't know much.

@N-o-Z
Copy link
Member

N-o-Z commented Sep 4, 2024

@N-o-Z why was this experimental in the first place? What changed since then? Is there full support for all Cloud vendors? @arielshaqed - maybe you can shed more context on why was this experimental?

This is one method of development we practice. We release something as experimental and if useful and works well we remove the experimental tag.
This was done a long time ago, and the decision to make it a "formal" API was taken a long time ago but was not executed.
This set of APIs is designed to work ONLY with S3. Enabling it for other block stores will require research into each storage we want to implement it for and might not be possible for some block stores

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants