mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Haibin Lin <haibin.lin....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reverting pull request
Date Fri, 15 Jun 2018 21:56:00 GMT
Why revert the PR when we know there's a fix?
If we keep going backwards like this, no progress can be made.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Mu Li <muli.cmu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agree that major changes need more extensive reviews. But we cannot ignore
> that both reviews and CI cannot catch all bugs. Reverting each PR after
> finding a bug should be the last ways, before it, we should try to fix it
> first.
>
> As for the breaking change, I see it differently. It breaks a not
> recommended usage of the API from an unmaintained tutorial, I don't think
> adding more reviewers will help it.
>
> Besides, I'm less sure if we can find enough reviewers to provide useful
> feedbacks for major changes.
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > We revert a PR because it should not have been merged in the first place.
> > So far, I have been ignoring the fact that our committers are constantly
> > breaking our own rules (which we expect contributors to follow). But
> since
> > this caused an impact twice (1.2 breaking change about model
> import/export
> > as well as this regression), I'm now being more strict and enforcing
> them.
> >
> > I could've also made a script that prevents any PR from being
> self-merged,
> > but I thought our committers are responsible enough to follow our own
> rules
> > without systems actually enforcing them. I won't waste my time working on
> > that script, but from now on I will revert every single PR (except
> > emergency cases) that has been self-merged without approval.
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:15 PM Mu Li <muli.cmu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why reverting instead of fixing the bugs? Static memory aims to reduce
> > > memory allocation, it's a key feature to bridge the perf gap between
> > gluon
> > > and symbol.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I'm reverting https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10817
> as
> > of
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11311 due to
> > regressions
> > > > described in https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11171
> > and
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10817.
> > > >
> > > > The pull request has been self-merged without proper review and
> > > introduced
> > > > regressions. Committers should act as role models in this project and
> > > > adhere to software engineer best practices.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Marco
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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