-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Document that Prometheus 2.0 no longer supports the protobuf exposition format #927
Comments
While the table on https://prometheus.io/docs/instrumenting/exposition_formats/ lists the protobuf version as supported only in ">=0.4.0, <2.0.0" now, that could indeed still be made clearer throughout the doc, especially now that most people should be on Prometheus 2.0. |
@cite-reader @juliusv I'm happy to handle this. Feel free to assign me. |
@lucperkins I sent you an invitiation to join this repo; you can then take issues yourself. As always, all commits must go through a PR. |
Yup, GitHub currently does not let me assign you, you'll have to join the repo :) |
There's no reference in the migration doc. |
The original ticket linked a url, https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics/blob/master/protobuf_vs_text.md , on protobuf vs text. That link is now 404. Is there any documentation anywhere on the deprecation of protobufs? Any kind of migration announcement? I'm trying to find something to mention about this change, but I can't find any discussion on the web I can use to cite this event in Prometheus's life (other than this ticket, which doesn't discuss why this was done, or what happened, only mentions the ask for such a note). Edit:
|
@rektide the doc that's missing seems to live here now: https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics/blob/master/markdown/protobuf_vs_text.md |
…metheus#927) * benchmark: add Sysbench Test Result of TiDB 3.0 Beta on NVMe SSD * Add content of TiDB config file * benchmark: update wording * benchmark: improve wording
The documentation page on exposition formats states:
As of Prometheus 2.0.0, this is not true. It doesn't seem to support the protobuf format at all.
That section of prose should be updated to reflect that fact, and the Supported in secton of the comparison table should reflect the upper version bound, at a minimum. More generally this page could probably stand to be rewritten to reflect conclusions from, for instance, this discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: