mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marco de Abreu <>
Subject Re: Feature branches for ARM and Android
Date Mon, 11 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT
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 <> 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 <
> > 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
> >

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