mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Separate repo for MXNet infrastructure
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2018 17:04:46 GMT
Was there any confusion?

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:02 PM Marco de Abreu
<marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Just to clarify and avoid confusion: The dockerized pipeline and other
> things that are tightly integrated would stay in the mxnet repository.
>
> We would only add new projects to the new repository.
>
> -Marco
>
> Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 2. Aug. 2018,
> 18:42:
>
> > Agree with Marco, there's a lot of stuff unrelated to MXNet. And right
> now
> > we have good separation of concerns via the dockerized builds and
> > ci/build.py infrastructure.
> > I'm also in favor of a separate repo.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:08 PM Marco de Abreu
> > <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Very good questions! My proposal would be that projects stored in that
> > > separate repository would be entirely independent of the mxnet code. If
> > > there is something that would need an update on both repositories,
> it's a
> > > strong indicator that it should be put into the mxnet repository. There
> > is
> > > no coupling between the two repositories.
> > >
> > > From my perspective, we would not do any releases in that repository.
> > > Contributions would happen in the same way as it happens right now:
> > People
> > > make pull requests and they can then be merged by committers.
> > >
> > > I personally think that storing things like these under the mxnet
> > > repository might make it unnecessarily big and also create a conflict
> of
> > > concerns. Code in the mxnet repository repository should be in direct
> > > relation to the source of mxnet.
> > > Another problem there would be our ci process. We would have to run the
> > > entire CI pipeline although a patch might only touch the tools. This is
> > not
> > > necessary.
> > >
> > > Avoiding the coupling allows us to ensure that solutions are entirely
> > > standalone and that they build on top of the user APIs. If we tightl
> > > integrate it, we might run into cases where people make changes in the
> > > mxnet code out of convenience on a fly-by.
> > >
> > > One example for a project would be the email not from Cathy. Her
> project
> > is
> > > entirely independent from the mxnet source and it should be made clear
> > that
> > > this is actually the case.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Marco
> > >
> > > sandeep krishnamurthy <sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 2.
> > > Aug.
> > > 2018, 17:50:
> > >
> > > > apache/incubator-mxnet-tools is a good idea.
> > > > I have few queries on - how do we manage separate repository,
> releases,
> > > > changes by contributors may have to go to 2 repositories (when CI
> > updates
> > > > are required), is it going to be inside 3rd party module, versions of
> > > > dependencies in tools should match with other resources in repo ex:
> > > > setup.py etc.
> > > >
> > > > Why not under mxnet repo a CI / tools / infra folder and all this
> tools
> > > go
> > > > under it?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Sandeep
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 4:12 AM Pedro Larroy <
> > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I like tools more.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:05 AM Marco de Abreu
> > > > > <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > definitely a good point, Isabel. During our office hour we
> thought
> > > > about
> > > > > > creating a repository under the Apache account with a name like
> > > > > > incubator-mxnet-tools or incubator-mxnet-infrastructure. Does
> > anybody
> > > > > have
> > > > > > other ideas for naming or maybe a better solution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Marco
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:35 AM Isabel Drost-Fromm <
> > > isabel@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 1. August 2018 09:36:24 MESZ schrieb Yuelin Zhang <
> > > > > > > zhangyuelinchina@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >My concern is where should my code be finally merged.
This bot
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >part of MXNet framework but it serves MXNet community.
For
> now,
> > a
> > > > good
> > > > > > > >option is to have a separate repo for infrastructure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As this would be something that serves the mxnet project,
my
> > advise
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > be to make sure it ends up in a location that is controlled
by
> > the
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > mxnet PMC, in a location that is mirrored back to ASF
> resources.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Isabel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9
Mail
> > > gesendet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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