Update model-configuration.mdx #645
Conversation
Restructured the docs to make it more obvious that Model Configuration is in EAP
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
|
|
||
| Sourcegraph v5.6.0 or later supports the ability to choose between different LLM models, allowing developers to use the best model for Cody Chat as needed. | ||
| Cody Enterprise can be configured using one of two methods: | ||
| 1. Legacy "Completions" Configuration |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I personally feel we shouldn't refer to this as the legacy option if that is our recommendation. Is there a specific reason why we're using this language?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reiterating myself:
I would expect the docs phrasing to read more like ‘Versions of Sourcegraph after Aug 7th feature a fancy new way to configure models and model providers, this is early-access, it might work for you but if you don’t want to be an early tester than you should use completions instead ’
| 2. Model Configuration (Early Access Program) | ||
|
|
||
| This is accomplished exposing much more flexible configuration options for Cody when using Sourcegraph Enterprise. The newer style of configuration is described next. However, you can still use the [Older style "Completions" Configuration](#legacy-completions-configuration). | ||
| <Callout type="warning">Configuring Cody via your Sourcegraph Enterprise instance via the Legacy "Completions" Configuration site configuration section is going to be deprecated soon. For now, it will be backwards compatible and supported. The Model Configuration method is in Early Access Program and only avaiable on Sourcegraph v5.6.0 or later </Callout> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, I don't think we should refer to this option as deprecated as long as its our primary recommendation.
|
|
||
| However, Sourcegraph supports several different types of LLM API providers natively. The current set of supported LLM API providers is: | ||
|
|
||
| | Provider type | Description | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Noting that we still do not document the correct options for providerOverrides.[].id anywhere in this doc. I think it would be good to include this information here in the same table, since I assume there is 1 to 1 mapping between providerOverrides.[].id and providerOverrides.[]serverSideConfig.type
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed and described in more detail here the work we should be doing: https://linear.app/sourcegraph/issue/PRIME-526/document-accepted-values-for-provideroverrides%5B%5Did-in-new
Restructured the docs to make it more obvious that Model Configuration is in EAP Resolves comments from @loujar in #645 and clarifies legacy vs EAP status for Model Config ## Pull Request approval Although pull request approval is not enforced for this repository in order to reduce friction, merging without a review will generate a ticket for the docs team to review your changes. So if possible, have your pull request approved before merging.
3 participants
Restructured the docs to make it more obvious that Model Configuration is in EAP
Pull Request approval
Although pull request approval is not enforced for this repository in order to reduce friction, merging without a review will generate a ticket for the docs team to review your changes. So if possible, have your pull request approved before merging.