mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [LAZY VOTE]: rename dockerfiles s/.build.//
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:59:42 GMT
I agree with Kellen on not renaming the CI docker files (by renaming - i
think its implicit you can use these for production) i don't think we
should telling our users go use these bloated docker files, you could
create lean separate docker files for production use-case with only
necessary runtime packages.

-1

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:48 AM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Pedro, sorry I still don't see a good reason to justify changing the
> filenames.  Renaming them to be less specific isn't going to explain to
> users what the purpose of the files is, and it could cause breakages with
> any system that refer to these files including external company's CI
> systems.  If I think of the benefits versus potential errors introduced by
> making the change I see more potential risk than obvious benefits.  I also
> feel that this change will make the difference between the runtime docker
> files and the CI docker files less clear to users, not more clear.  In
> general I think adding a descriptive README.md would server our purposed
> better here.  Happy to hear what others think.
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:45 AM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kellen, thank you for your response.
> >
> > Maybe I didn't explain myself correctly. The purpose of this
> infrastructure
> > is not changed.
> >
> > I'm not planning to use these Dockerfiles as MXNet docker containers for
> > users to run MXNet, that is a separate concern.
> >
> > It is just that some of this Dockerfiles we use in CI to build, test and
> > generate documentation, so are used as a runtime container as well. Thus
> > i'm just changing the pathing for semantic reasons and remove the .build.
> > which is just noise.
> >
> > As an example I would like to explain that we are about to merge the PR
> > which uses QEMU to run the unit tests, so there's an associated
> Dockerfile
> > which hosts the QEMU runtime environment used to execute the unit tests
> in
> > an ARM emulated machine. Thus makes little sense that these Dockerfiles
> are
> > called "build".  I don't know if my explanation changes your vote. Either
> > way please let me know. Separating this change in a different PR was
> > suggested by several MXNet contributors during review.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:21 AM kellen sunderland <
> > kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -1. (non-binding)
> > >
> > > These Dockerfiles are very bloated and imo only useful for creating a
> > build
> > > environment or running tests.  Just as you wouldn't setup a server for
> a
> > > service and then install 200 packages that may or may not be used for
> the
> > > service I wouldn't recommend using these Dockerfiles at runtime.
> Runtime
> > > Dockerfiles should in my opinion be as lightweight and suited to their
> > task
> > > as possible.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 1:58 AM Hagay Lupesko <lupesko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The PR provides a good explanation of this change and all code
> updates.
> > > > LGTM.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:41 AM Pedro Larroy <
> > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to rename the dockerfiles since they are used as a
> > runtime
> > > > > environment and not only as build as they were initially intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > More info about the change in this PR:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12423/files
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedro.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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