mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zha, Sheng" <zhash...@amazon.com>
Subject Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge
Date Thu, 28 Sep 2017 19:14:25 GMT
+1 on protected branch.

Best regards,
-sz

On 9/28/17, 11:48 AM, "Kumar, Gautam" <gauta@amazon.com> wrote:

    Hi Guys, 
    
     Let’s focus on specific issue here. 
    
    Marking the master branch protected which involves “Only merge if checks has passed,
and yes it will run the complete build”. 
    
    We can’t afford to degrade the quality and keep debugging the build failure forever.
If it’s slow down the development at the cost of quality I will vote for the quality. 
    We can work on improving the infrastructure to improve the overall speed.  If you have
any specific concerns on availability of Jenkins please point out. 
    
    -Gautam 
    
    
    On 9/28/17, 11:38 AM, "Chris Olivier" <cjolivier01@gmail.com> wrote:
    
        -1000 on that. :)
        
        On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:33 AM Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> wrote:
        
        > PR->Sanity test/Linux build/test->reviewer/committer approves the
        > change->Comment "Build Now" (Or trigger on at least one approval from a
        > committer other than author)->*Full build-*>*passes build*->Enable Merge
        >
        > Let us take this particular topic to a separate thread or discuss offline
        > if further clarification is needed.
        >
        > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
        > wrote:
        >
        > > I understand the proposal.  How to trigger a build in that case?
        > >
        > >
        > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:54 AM Madan Jampani <madan.jampani@gmail.com>
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > > Chris,
        > > > I don't think Naveen is suggesting that a merge happen without full
        > > > verification i.e. all tests across all platforms pass.
        > > > If a PR has some back and forth and results in multiple revisions
        > (which
        > > is
        > > > arguably more common than a random unit test failing), we simply delay
        > > full
        > > > verification until the owner/reviewer have settled on a mutually
        > > acceptable
        > > > state.
        > > >
        > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com
        > >
        > > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > -1 for running only partial tests.  Most failing unit tests that
get
        > > > > through fail only for certain platforms/configurations.  I personally
        > > > > prefer to be assured the build and test is good before merge.
 Most
        > PR
        > > > > merges aren't in a huge hurry.
        > > > >
        > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com>
        > > > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > > +1 to make it protected. Here is what I am thinking for PR
builds
        > > > > > on a PR run Sanity Tests + build/test one platform->committer
        > reviews
        > > > the
        > > > > > code and issues "Build Now", a full build is run->Github
checks
        > that
        > > > the
        > > > > > full build checks succeed before it can be merged.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I agree with Madan that PR should be approved by one another
        > > committer.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Madan Jampani <
        > > > madan.jampani@gmail.com>
        > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > +1
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > At a minimum I'd like to see the following two happen:
        > > > > > > - Option to merge is disabled until all required checks
pass.
        > > > > > > - Code is reviewed and given +1 by at least one other
committer
        > (no
        > > > > self
        > > > > > > review).
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Gautam <gautamnitc@gmail.com>
        > > > wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Hi Chris,
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >   Here <https://help.github.com/articles/about-protected-
        > > branches/
        > > > >
        > > > > is
        > > > > > > > user
        > > > > > > > document on semantics of protected branch.
        > > > > > > > In short when a branch is protected following applies
to that
        > > > branch.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >    - Can't be force pushed
        > > > > > > >    - Can't be deleted
        > > > > > > >    - Can't have changes merged into it until required
status
        > > checks
        > > > > > > >    <https://help.github.com/articles/about-required-
        > > status-checks>
        > > > > > pass
        > > > > > > >    - Can't have changes merged into it until required
reviews
        > are
        > > > > > > approved
        > > > > > > >    <https://help.github.com/articles/approving-a-pull-
        > > > > > > > request-with-required-reviews>
        > > > > > > >    - Can't be edited or have files uploaded to
it from the web
        > > > > > > >    - Can't have changes merged into it until changes
to files
        > > that
        > > > > > > > have a designated
        > > > > > > >    code owner <https://help.github.com/
        > > articles/about-codeowners/>
        > > > > > have
        > > > > > > >    been approved by that owner
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >  I am sure many of us might not want to have all
these but we
        > can
        > > > > > debate
        > > > > > > on
        > > > > > > > it. My main motive was to "*Can't have changes
merged into it
        > > until
        > > > > > > > required status checks pass*"
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > -Gautam
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Chris Olivier
<
        > > > > cjolivier01@gmail.com
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > What does that mean? "Protected"? Protected
from what?
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:08 PM Gautam <
        > gautamnitc@gmail.com>
        > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris,
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >    I mean make "master branch protected"
of  MXNet.
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > -Gautam
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Chris
Olivier <
        > > > > > > cjolivier01@gmail.com
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > What does this mean? "Mx-net branch
protected"?
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM
Tsuyoshi OZAWA <
        > > > > > > > > ozawa.tsuyoshi@gmail.com
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > +1,
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > While I'm checking the recent
build failures, and I
        > think
        > > > the
        > > > > > > > > decision
        > > > > > > > > > > > of making the mx-net branch
protected is necessary for
        > > > stable
        > > > > > > > > > > > building.
        > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Kumar for resuming important
discussion.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards
        > > > > > > > > > > > - Tsuyoshi
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:56
PM, Kumar, Gautam <
        > > > > > > gauta@amazon.com>
        > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviving the discussion.
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point of time
we have couple of stable builds
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > https://builds.apache.org/view/Incubator%20Projects/job/
        > > > > > > > > > > incubator-mxnet/job/master/448/
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > https://builds.apache.org/view/Incubator%20Projects/job/
        > > > > > > > > > > incubator-mxnet/job/master/449/
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we have a quick
discussion or polling on
        > making
        > > > the
        > > > > > > mx-net
        > > > > > > > > > > branch
        > > > > > > > > > > > protected? If you still think
we shouldn’t make it
        > > > protected
        > > > > > > please
        > > > > > > > > > > provide
        > > > > > > > > > > > a reason to support your claim.
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Few of us have concern
over Jenkin’s stability. If I
        > > look
        > > > > two
        > > > > > > > weeks
        > > > > > > > > > > > back, after upgrading Linux
slave to g2.8x and new
        > > windows
        > > > > AMI,
        > > > > > > we
        > > > > > > > > have
        > > > > > > > > > > not
        > > > > > > > > > > > seen any case where instance
died due to high memory
        > > usage
        > > > or
        > > > > > any
        > > > > > > > > > process
        > > > > > > > > > > > got killed due to high cpu
usage or any other issue
        > with
        > > > > > windows
        > > > > > > > > > slaves.
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Going forward we are also
planning that if we add any
        > > new
        > > > > > slave
        > > > > > > > we
        > > > > > > > > > will
        > > > > > > > > > > > not enable the main load immediately,
but rather will
        > do
        > > > > ‘test
        > > > > > > > build’
        > > > > > > > > > to
        > > > > > > > > > > > make sure that new slaves are
not causing any
        > > > infrastructure
        > > > > > > issue
        > > > > > > > > and
        > > > > > > > > > > > capable to perform as good
as existing slaves.
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > -Gautam
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/31/17, 5:27 PM, "Lupesko,
Hagay" <
        > > lupesko@gmail.com
        > > > >
        > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >     @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>
        > > > > > > > > > > > >         >         >
>
        > > > > > > > > > > > >         >         >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >         >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >         >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >         >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >         >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >         >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >         >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > --
        > > > > > > > > > > > - Tsuyoshi
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > --
        > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
        > > > > > > > > > Gautam Kumar
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > --
        > > > > > > > Best Regards,
        > > > > > > > Gautam Kumar
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        
    
    

Mime
View raw message