I wonder if it's worth updating the readme section instead of deleting it? We do let the pvnet readme go woefully out of date from time to time, but I think this is still our main bit of docs on how to use it, and I think it's nice to have the backtest instructions in there, even if they just point to ml-tooling.

I wonder if it's worth updating the readme section instead of deleting it? We do let the pvnet readme go woefully out of date from time to time, but I think this is still our main bit of docs on how to use it, and I think it's nice to have the backtest instructions in there, even if they just point to ml-tooling.

Thanks for pointing this out Alex. Two things - as you say there are some out of date things in the readme like the streamed samples. I might make a new issue to update this. But for the backtest, happy to put back in the instructions on how find and run the backtest, but just wondering on what you both think about the fact that ml-tooling is a private ocf repo? So this would only be useful to internal ocf team

Thanks for pointing this out Alex. Two things - as you say there are some out of date things in the readme like the streamed samples. I might make a new issue to update this. But for the backtest, happy to put back in the instructions on how find and run the backtest, but just wondering on what you both think about the fact that ml-tooling is a private ocf repo? So this would only be useful to internal ocf team

Yeah that's fair, I don't think we get much open-source traffic on pvnet though & I do think it would be useful to link to this, so maybe just specify that this is for internal use? And yeah, agree that the readme needs a spruce in a separate issue!