mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steffen Rochel <steffenroc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge
Date Mon, 09 Oct 2017 01:00:57 GMT
Hi Hen - we started to document the process -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Development+Process
Contributions are welcome!
Steffen

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> A late followup on this.
>
> Is the "How a committer develops on MXNet" documented anywhere?
> Staging/master etc? The more complex the development process, the harder it
> is for a newcomer to get involved on the project. I couldn't find it on the
> website/github.
>
> (I'd also note that the 'how to modify the website/documentation' also
> needs to be documented)
>
> I'd suggest that the how-to-dev doc also explain why it's bad for master to
> not build. One could argue that, outside of when a release is being made,
> master is not important to our users. Yes it should build, but an accident
> should only affect those who have put themselves on the bleeding edge.
>
> Hen
>
> 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 test results are outdated and the build might fail after it gets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/
> > > 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
> > > >         > > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > > >
> > > >         > > > > >
> > > >         > > > >
> > > >         > > >
> > > >         > >
> > > >         >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > Gautam Kumar
> >
>

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