Move content out of learn/experimental section

[guimachiavelli]

@meilisearch/integration-team: this PR makes two types of changes to code samples:

• add an experimental_ prefix to the following existing code sample ids, without any changes to the samples themselves:
  • get_embedders_1 -> experimental_get_embedders_1
  • update_embedders_1 -> experimental_update_embedders_1
  • reset_embedders_1 -> experimental_reset_embedders_1
  • search_parameter_guide_hybrid_1 -> experimental_search_parameter_guide_hybrid_1
  • search_parameter_guide_vector_1 -> experimental_search_parameter_guide_vector_1
  • search_parameter_reference_retrieve_vectors_1 -> experimental_search_parameter_reference_retrieve_vectors_1
• adds a handful of new samples:
  • experimental_get_metrics_1
  • experimental_post_logs_stderr_1
  • experimental_post_logs_stream_1
  • experimental_delete_logs_stream_1

This change is mostly for my own internal organization. I do not expect you to supply code samples for any future samples prefixed with experimental_, except in strategic cases like AI-powered search.

[meili-bot]

How to see the preview of this PR?

⚠️ Private link, only accessible to Meilisearch employees.

Go to this URL: https://website-git-deploy-preview-mei-16-meili.vercel.app/docs/branch:create-experimental-api-routes

Credentials to access the page are in the company's password manager as "Docs deploy preview".

[curquiza]

add an experimental_ prefix to the following existing code sample ids, without any changes to the samples themselves:

I have to say I'm not pro this change 😞

• a lot of changes on our side to do
• features can be stabilized in a future, and it will be the case of AI, so we will have to change it everywhere again...

Can't you manage your code samples without this change? 🙏 would definitely help us on our side.

[guimachiavelli]

@macraig, in short, I'm moving everything out of the experimental section and into places users are more likely to find that info naturally (e.g. CONTAINS in the filter reference). If you have the time, I'd appreciate if you could give it a quick look just in case there's any info that's clearly out of date.

[macraig]

The new structure looks good to me!

[curquiza]

discussed with @guimachiavelli and I would rather we don't do this breaking due to the lot of work coming after this breaking for integrations

[macraig]

discussed with @guimachiavelli and I would rather we don't do this breaking due to the lot of work coming after this breaking for integrations

Oh my bad, as @guimachiavelli 's request for review was after your initial comment @curquiza , I thought you were ok with these changes.

[guimachiavelli]

Apologies, I should have clarified that I intended @macraig's review to be on the content of the PR itself so at least that part has been approved. I'll change the current code samples back to their previous state to reflect in a future commit, once I've dealt with other priorities.