mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas DELTEIL <thomas.delte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Feature branches for ARM and Android
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:30:08 GMT
Hi Pedro,

Is there a problem in working off a branch in your own fork and issue a
[WIP] PR ? This is a pattern I have seen a lot and personally I think it
works well, since it also gives some visibility if someone is interested in
looking at the progress of the work. You can add people collaborating with
you as collaborator to your own fork and that way your commits will be run
against the CI. Make sure to merge from apache/master and not larroy/master
if you have conflicts? Not sure why you got these conflicts otherwise.

All the best,

Thomas

2018-06-12 23:39 GMT-07:00 Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>:

> Thanks a lot for creating these branches and proposing the idea, for the
> reasons you listed.
>
>
>  We tried during this week to work with these branches with @lebeg for
> Android and Arm support, for the reasons listed below these branches are
> not useful for us, so you can delete them.
>
> 1. We don't have permissions to commit to these development branches,
> 2. they show merge conflicts that have been solved locally before running
> CI (?). I'm pretty sure I merged and resolved conflicts locally. 3. It
> would also pollute the repository history with continuous merges to and
> from these branches. I prefer to have a linear history in master so
> changes, regressions and bisecting can be less painful when dealing with
> issues.
>
> I think is important to share development and integrate small, incremental
> patches towards architecture support, unfortunately these branches can't
> help us at this stage. We will share our work through a different means and
> without polluting the project with additional branches which are not meant
> for production or general use.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:20 AM Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The problem with regular reviews here is that we might want to keep
> > temporary code or hacks as a temporary solution before we finalize it. A
> > regular review would have problems with that.
> >
> > The reason against a fork is the requirement of CI. Since multiple people
> > are working on the same branch and we have to file PRs against each
> other,
> > it would cause problems if CI is only triggered after the fact.
> >
> > Ideally, the branch will be in a good state and wouldn't need many
> chances
> > to be mergeable for master.
> >
> > Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 10. Juni 2018, 10:46:
> >
> > > I suggest you do a regular review and not a pass-through review for
> these
> > > branches as well. It would hard to manage a massive review at the end,
> if
> > > every commit to the branch goes with a proper PR, you could just merge
> to
> > > the master when its ready.
> > >
> > > If you want an experimental branch, why not just work it off of a fork?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > we are currently revisiting our setup for ARM and Android. Since
> we're
> > > not
> > > > in a stable state but need some way to collaborate while having
> support
> > > > from CI, we proposed the usage of feature branches. Thus, I have
> create
> > > the
> > > > two branches devel-arm and devel-android into which Anton and Pedro
> are
> > > > going to submit their PRs.
> > > >
> > > > @Reviewers: It'd be great if you could assist with the reviews.
> Please
> > > note
> > > > that the reviews for these branches can be less harsh, thus temporary
> > > > solutions and commented code are totally acceptable. We will do a
> final
> > > > review after the acceptance criteria (successful cross-compilation
> and
> > > > manual test execution on a physical device) are fulfilled. This is
> > > > necessary because we currently have no CI coverage and would like to
> > keep
> > > > these changes isolated from master until we found a stable solution.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Marco
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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