mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gautam <gautamn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge
Date Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:26:34 GMT
Hi All,

  The master branch is protected now. Please review your PR for merge.
Thanks to Infra team for following up on this.

Regards,
Gautam

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Gautam <gautamnitc@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks All.
>
>  I've created the JIRA to mark the protected branch for master
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-205.
> We also need to add all the committers to be code owner as discussed in
> the slack, I've opened a PR for it https://github.com/apache/
> incubator-mxnet/pull/8128.
>
> Good point Joern, I'll follow up on that.
>
> Regards,
> Gautam
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Joern Kottmann <kottmann@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It also makes sense to block too old PRs from merging, because the
>> test results are outdated and the build might fail after it gets
>> merged.
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Zha, Sheng <zhasheng@amazon.com> wrote:
>> > +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/artic
>> les/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/artic
>> les/about-required-
>> >         > > status-checks>
>> >         > > > > > pass
>> >         > > > > > > >    - Can't have changes merged into
it until
>> required reviews
>> >         > are
>> >         > > > > > > approved
>> >         > > > > > > >    <https://help.github.com/artic
>> les/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/articl
>> es/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
>> >         > > > > > > >
>> >         > > > > > >
>> >         > > > > >
>> >         > > > >
>> >         > > >
>> >         > >
>> >         >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Gautam Kumar
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Gautam Kumar

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