mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zha, Sheng" <>
Subject Re: Protected master needs to be turned off
Date Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:37:17 GMT
My +1 vote stands. The vote is about what we should do right now, not where we should be ideally
in 3 months. I don’t think we can move forward without disabling the branch protection,
because current CI is not in any state to base the merge-decisions on. For example, here’s
1. Master branch protection is currently on. A change that breaks build was still merged in
on the 16th despite the protection. I wasn’t able to merge the fix in yesterday for 8 hours
because the CI tests fail.
2. False negative rate is currently too high (see the red crosses in

People who are working on test infrastructure might say that it’s “enough work to isolate
and fix the current issues”, and I can certainly relate to that. On the other hand, you
too can probably empathize with the developers who has “enough work to develop new features
and write tests” without having to deal with the broken CI. (note that my argument is on
the CI system, and flaky test cases are a separate issue).

Regarding “doesn't that mean that our users and customers are also going to face those issues”,
I honestly don’t think the argument stands. Release cycles and distribution channels, as
well as the safety measures are there exactly to isolate the problems to the development branch
and protect the users. If anything, turning on branch protection on release branches should

Finally, master branch protection being off doesn’t mean PRs can be merged without being
tested. Contributors own the code quality and are responsible for the changes. Committers
and reviewers are there to ensure that merged changes are OK.

Best regards,

On 11/19/17, 1:51 PM, "Marco de Abreu" <> wrote:

    -1 (non binding)
    Who is going to be responsible for changes breaking tests and having other
    side effects after they have been merged? I'm afraid that this will harm
    further development. At the moment I'm the responsible person for setting
    up the new CI and so far have my results shown that not the CI itself is
    the problem but also the stability of our code as well as the tests
    themselves. At the moment we are having big issues to get a stable CI
    because MXNet seems to be relying on so specific architectures,
    dependencies and other factors which I'm not even able to track down that
    this causes everything to be unstable.
    Just to point it out: If we encounter so many problems while setting up a
    CI system, doesn't that mean that our users and customers are also going to
    face those issues as soon as things are getting more complicated? This is a
    red flag in my opinion and I'm really looking forward to the usability
    Sprint, but at the moment I'm afraid that an unprotected master will make
    the situation even worse. It's already enough work to isolate and fix the
    current issues, but if new untested changes get merged, this is going to be
    like fighting a wildfire with a bottle of water.
    So please revise your thoughts. If anybody is blocked by the protected
    master, I would really appreciate it if they could approach me personally
    in order to help stabilising the current situation. Just feeding in more
    and more changes on one end while we're fixing issues on the other end
    won't get us anywhere.
    Best regards,
    Am 19.11.2017 10:08 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" <>:
    > Revised:
    > +1 at least until new CI is implemented. Then reevaluate.
    > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:07 PM Chris Olivier <>
    > wrote:
    > > +1
    > >
    > >
    > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:52 PM Zha, Sheng <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> +1
    > >>
    > >> Best regards,
    > >> -sz
    > >>
    > >> On 11/19/17, 12:51 PM, "Eric Xie" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>     Hi all,
    > >>     I'm starting this thread to vote on turning off protected master.
    > The
    > >> reasons are:
    > >>
    > >>     1. Since we turned on protected master pending PRs has grown from 40
    > >> to 80. It is severely slowing down development.
    > >>
    > >>     2. Committers, not CI, are ultimately responsible for the code they
    > >> merge. You should only override the CI when you are very confident that
    > CI
    > >> is the problem, not your code. If it turns out you are wrong, you should
    > >> fix it ASAP. This is the bare minimum requirement for all committers: BE
    > >>
    > >>     I'm aware of the argument for using protected master: It make sure
    > >> that master is stable.
    > >>
    > >>     Well, master will be most stable if we stop adding any commits to
    > it.
    > >> But that's not what we want is it?
    > >>
    > >>     Protected master hardly adds any stability. The faulty tests that
    > >> breaks master at random got merged into master because they happened to
    > >> succeed once.
    > >>
    > >>     Thanks,
    > >>     Junyuan Xie
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

View raw message