[docs] remove solver-specific notes #2578
Merged
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2578 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.37% 93.37%
=======================================
Files 44 44
Lines 5511 5511
=======================================
Hits 5146 5146
Misses 365 365 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
We should check that the information we're deleting is present in the solver READMEs. |
odow
commented
Apr 29, 2021
odow
commented
Apr 29, 2021
| ```julia | ||
| using MosekTools | ||
| model = Model(Mosek.Optimizer) | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Moved to MOSEK/Mosek.jl#204
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 removed the "solver-specific notes" section because the list of solvers is growing, and this section is getting long and could get out-dated. in addition, we discuss some solvers in detail, so why not all? Details (like the paragraph on ProxSDP, to pick one example) are best left to the solver's README.
One option I have been considering is to figure out a way to include each solver's README as a page in the JuMP documentation. Then we could standardize that format to give users a consistent documentation for each solver in an accessible place.