-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 671
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
[Docs] flytectl demo vs flytectl sandbox #3791
Comments
Thank you for opening your first issue here! 🛠 |
@wild-endeavor @eapolinario, should we deprecate the sandbox? |
we should update flytectl first, and then just make demo an alias of sandbox. |
I think this is done? |
I think we should now remove references to |
Hi! I would like to work on this issue |
@RaghavMangla thanks for your willingness to contribute. Considering you already have 6 issues assigned to you, and following the principle of "first come first serve" we'd like to encourage you to send PRs for the issues where you are already an assignee and then, if no one has taken this one, we can assign to you. Thanks in advance :) |
Hi @davidmirror-ops I would like to work on this if not taken. Should the entire section under |
@shinigami-777 done! Please let us know soon any questions you may have. Thank you |
Description
As of now there are 2 ways to create a
fully standalone minimal environment for running Flyte
. One is usingflytectl demo start
command and other is withflytectl sandbox start
command. Document for demo is here and document for sandbox is here.Having these 2 different ways for the same thing is confusing for a new comer because of multiple reasons:
This hard to find document says that
demo
is lighter / better but there isn't any action or ticket to manage this document hence creating this ticket. Hopefully it is not a duplicate issue.Are you sure this issue hasn't been raised already?
Have you read the Code of Conduct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: