docs: add the closure verification spec for the model artifact line - #667
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Signed-off-by: thxCode <thxcode0824@gmail.com>
|
✅ OpenCodeReview: Review skipped: no items were selected. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation
What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds the closure-verification spec for the model artifact line. It re-verifies five acceptance
rows on real nodes (claim-before-bind on a real kubelet, GPU end-to-end, TAS preference, KV-cache
dtype mixing with a real Mooncake store, per-card fit labels and NodeFeature teardown), and it
dispositions every issue the earlier stages' review rounds left open: five fixes, one docs plus
chart-validation item, two same-family Settings-propagation reports to diagnose, one time-boxed
chart-e2e investigation, and four hardening items to file without code change.
Which issue(s) this PR links to:
Relates #661
Relates #662
Relates #663
Relates #595
Relates #587
Relates #583
Relates #630
Relates #653
Relates #648
Special notes for your reviewer:
The spec reads
Plannedwith aBlocked on:line because the verification rows and dispositionsit defines have not run yet; it moves to
Shippedwhen they are done. Issue #661 is the one openquestion and carries a recorded default.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?