Skip to content

Conversation

@kaitlynmichael
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@kaitlynmichael kaitlynmichael requested review from a team and amiramm May 5, 2025 20:18
@kaitlynmichael kaitlynmichael self-assigned this May 5, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 5, 2025

Copy link
Collaborator

@dwdougherty dwdougherty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just one comment. Otherwise, LGTM.

Each release of Redis Enterprise for Kubernetes is thoroughly tested against a set of Kubernetes distributions. The table below lists Redis Enterprise for Kubernetes versions and the Kubernetes distributions they support.

{{<note>}}Each platform is tested with its default configuration, including storage, network, security, and container runtime components.”{{</note>}}
{{<note>}}x86 is currently the only computer architecture supported by Redis Enterprise for Kubernetes. Support for ARM architecture is coming in future releases.{{</note>}}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

x86 generally refers to 32-bit Intel. I doubt anybody deploys 32-bit OSes these days (maybe they do?). Consider writing this as follows. If 32-bit is still supported, I'd use both: x86, both 32- and 64-bit.

Suggested change
{{<note>}}x86 is currently the only computer architecture supported by Redis Enterprise for Kubernetes. Support for ARM architecture is coming in future releases.{{</note>}}
{{<note>}}x86-64 is currently the only computer architecture supported by Redis Enterprise for Kubernetes. Support for ARM architecture is coming in future releases.{{</note>}}

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I honestly don't know if we support both 32 and 64-bit. @amiramm did you want us to make this distinction in the docs?

@kaitlynmichael kaitlynmichael merged commit e2b916c into main May 8, 2025
5 checks passed
@kaitlynmichael kaitlynmichael deleted the DOC-5171 branch May 8, 2025 17:16
kaitlynmichael added a commit that referenced this pull request May 8, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants