mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge
Date Thu, 28 Sep 2017 06:09:47 GMT
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
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message