Remove "Limitations" section from docs about User Ops #4831
Conversation
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I'd added this "Limitations" section back when we first released User Ops. I don't make a general habit of trying to disclose all the known bugs in the docs, but at the time it felt we were walking a fine line where it was a good feature if users knew the handful of limitations and stayed within the lines. There were enough of these limitations that I felt it irresponsible to ask users to try the feature without disclosing those gotchas.
Well, over the past couple months @mattnibs has been squashing the bugs one by one and I've been whittling away at the bugs listed in this section after each fix lands. With #4701 now having been verified as fixed, almost all the known limitations have been addressed, so I'm in favor of dropping the section entirely. It does leave us with remaining issue #4692 I'd bumped into at one point, but it's a bit more of a corner case, so I'm happy to revert to the norm.