mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [LAZY VOTE]: rename dockerfiles s/.build.//
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:06:16 GMT
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