mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lupesko, Hagay" <lupe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge
Date Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:27:12 GMT
@madan looking into some failures – you’re right… there’s multiple issues going on,
some of them intermittent, and we want to be able to merge fixes in.
Agreed that we can wait with setting up protected mode until build stabilizes.

On 8/31/17, 11:41, "Madan Jampani" <madan.jampani@gmail.com> wrote:

    @hagay: we agree on the end state. I'm not too particular about how we get
    there. If you think enabling it now and fixes regression later is doable,
    I'm fine with. I see a bit of a chicken and egg problem. We need to get
    some fixes in even when the status checks are failing.
    
    On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Lupesko, Hagay <lupesko@gmail.com> wrote:
    
    > @madan – re: getting to a stable CI first:
    > I’m concerned that by not enabling protected branch mode ASAP, we’re just
    > taking in more regressions, which makes a stable build a moving target for
    > us…
    >
    > On 8/31/17, 10:49, "Zha, Sheng" <zhasheng@amazon.com> wrote:
    >
    >     Just one thing: please don’t disable more tests or just raise the
    > tolerance thresholds.
    >
    >     Best regards,
    >     -sz
    >
    >     On 8/31/17, 10:45 AM, "Madan Jampani" <madan.jampani@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >         +1
    >         Before we can turn protected mode I feel we should first get to a
    > stable CI
    >         pipeline.
    >         Sandeep is chasing down known breaking issues.
    >
    >
    >         On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Hagay Lupesko <lupesko@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >         > Build stability is a major issue, builds have been failing left
    > and right
    >         > over the last week. Some of it is due to Jenkins slave issues,
    > but some are
    >         > real regressions.
    >         > We need to be more strict in the code we're committing.
    >         >
    >         > I propose we configure our master to be a protected branch (
    >         > https://help.github.com/articles/about-protected-branches/).
    >         >
    >         > Thoughts?
    >         >
    >         > On 2017-08-28 22:41, sandeep krishnamurthy <s...@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >         > > Hello Committers and Contributors,>
    >         > >
    >         > > Due to unstable build pipelines, from past 1 week, PRs are
    > being merged>
    >         > > after CR ignoring PR build status. Build pipeline is much more
    > stable
    >         > than>
    >         > > last week and most of the build failures you see from now on,
    > are likely
    >         > to>
    >         > > be a valid failure and hence, it is recommended to wait for PR
    > builds,
    >         > see>
    >         > > the root cause of any build failures before proceeding with
    > merges.>
    >         > >
    >         > > At this point of time, there are 2 intermittent issue yet to
    > be fixed ->
    >         > > * Network error leading to GitHub requests throwing 404>
    >         > > * A conflict in artifacts generated between branches/PR -
    > Cause unknown
    >         > yet.>
    >         > > These issues will be fixed soon.>
    >         > >
    >         > >
    >         > > -- >
    >         > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy>
    >         > >
    >         >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    



Mime
View raw message