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: [LAZY VOTE]: rename dockerfiles s/.build.//
Date Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:58:41 GMT
Allright then, I closed that PR. Thanks for your feedback.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:06 PM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:

> May be of interest to people that we're trying get a good set of
> production-ready Dockerfiles (which I'm referring to as runtime Dockerfiles
> in this thread) with a PR open here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12791 (thanks for updating
> these Meghna).
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:00 PM Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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