rmv gen3-turbo #3386
rmv gen3-turbo #3386
Conversation
We can remove the flag and
Yes... we really should avoid using experimental options in tutorials.
Yes, but presumably we want to remove the link? |
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
|
One or more of the following people are relevant to this code:
|
|
Ready for review @jyu00 - thanks! |
| Improvements include the following: | ||
|
|
||
| - A 75x speedup in execution by using the [Gen3 engine stack](/docs/guides/runtime-options-overview#experimental-option-note) | ||
| - A 75x speedup in execution by using the Gen3 engine stack |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From an archival standpoint, ok to leave the mention of gen3-turbo in the latest-updates page, since they are date-stamped?
It seems more clear to me to remove entirely, given that people may read this and wonder how to use it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it help to add a note by any occurrences saying something like "(no longer experimental as of June 2025)" @jyu00 ? I try to resist any appearance of rewriting history.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If so, will do in a followup so that we can get this one merged for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought the original wording was
... by using the latest (Gen3) engine stack?
If that may still make people wonder about how to use it, then we can say
... by using the latest (Gen3) engine stack, which is the default execution path as of June 2025
Or add a note saying gen3-turbo was removed because it's now the default instead of experimental, as @abbycross suggested.
4 participants
Closes #3269.
@jyu00: Are we removing just the flag from the tables on this page, or do we remove the whole experimental/execution_path row?
Also, do we need to edit the tutorial here?
From an archival standpoint, ok to leave the mention of gen3-turbo in the latest-updates page, since they are date-stamped?