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

RHOAIENG-3943 Update Model Registry documentation #34

Merged

Conversation

tarilabs
Copy link
Member

Description

I followed same style per https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHOAIENG-3946

I've used as sources:

Since "Model Registry Tenancy Proposal" is still under finalization I didn't include it yet in the current PR, we can expand on it later once the ADR is approved.

How Has This Been Tested?

Merge criteria:

  • The commits are squashed in a cohesive manner and have meaningful messages.
  • Testing instructions have been added in the PR body (for PRs involving changes that are not immediately obvious).
  • The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work

@tarilabs tarilabs force-pushed the tarilabs-20240328-RHOAIENG-3943 branch from d621641 to 249d372 Compare March 28, 2024 09:23
Copy link
Contributor

@etirelli etirelli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

made some minor editorial comments, but I suggest rewording the whole document to reflect what is the model server component (present tense), instead of what is intended for the future.

architecture/components/model-registry/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
architecture/components/model-registry/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
architecture/components/model-registry/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
architecture/components/model-registry/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
architecture/components/model-registry/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tarilabs
Copy link
Member Author

made some minor editorial comments, but I suggest rewording the whole document to reflect what is the model server component (present tense), instead of what is intended for the future.

thank you for the feedback @etirelli , I believe I rewritten all future tense sentences I could find to present tense with 4dd3c07

@tarilabs tarilabs requested a review from etirelli March 28, 2024 13:59
@etirelli etirelli merged commit 7d14d89 into opendatahub-io:main Apr 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants