mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Madan Jampani <madan.jamp...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge
Date Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:54:16 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message