Review comments proposal.md from API review #167
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: smarterclayton 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
@robscott as well |
| @@ -129,6 +130,7 @@ type InferencePoolSpec struct { | |||
| // that should be included in the InferencePool. ModelServers should not | |||
| // be with any other Service or InferencePool, that behavior is not supported | |||
| // and will result in sub-optimal utilization. | |||
| /* REVIEW: This is generally true for all services, but since the ig needs to deal with monitoring, health checking, and changes to membership in the pool (i.e. a member removed from the selector or gracefully shutting down), I think it's more of a distraction than necessary. */ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For clarity: We are referencing the comment above?
I'm just going to remove the second sentence entirely, I don't like how I worded that anyway.
| @@ -142,11 +144,15 @@ type InferencePoolSpec struct { | |||
| // and rollout of new versions of those models, and defines the specific | |||
| // performance and latency goals for the model. These workloads are | |||
| // expected to operate within an InferencePool sharing compute capacity with other | |||
| /* REVIEW: "operate" sounds wierd */ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1
We should consider removing the API definitions from this document since it will be difficult to maintain due to ongoing API changes. Instead, consider linking to the API definitions and use this document to cover the high-level API concepts.
No description provided.