mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Skalicky, Sam" <sska...@amazon.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Stopping nightly releases to Pypi
Date Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:23:26 GMT
Hi dev,

I made an html page that generates the links to the nightly builds available in the public
S3 bucket so you don’t have to log into AWS to see them.

https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/index.html

Keep in mind we only have builds from January 2020 and December 2019 so far.

Sam

On Jan 10, 2020, at 3:05 AM, Sheng Zha <zhasheng@apache.org<mailto:zhasheng@apache.org>>
wrote:

Size of a change doesn't necessarily reflect the time one spends on the navigating the code
base and finding the solution. Also, I tend to believe that everyone genuinely wants what's
best for the project, just from different perspectives.

Let's focus on improving the CD solution so that security concerns can be addressed too.

-sz

On 2020/01/09 21:57:30, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@apache.org<mailto:cjolivier01@apache.org>>
wrote:
If this tiny fix is representative of the bulk of the reasoning behind all
the the CD churn recently, then this seems to be of some concern.

-Chris

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 6:32 AM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@gmail.com<mailto:marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Great, thanks a lot sheng!

-Marco

Sheng Zha <zhasheng@apache.org<mailto:zhasheng@apache.org>> schrieb am Do., 9.
Jan. 2020, 14:28:

I'm fixing the CD pipeline in
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/17259/files and will
update the s3 publish path so that it's friendly for automatically
generating such page.

-sz

On 2020/01/06 18:19:52, "Lausen, Leonard" <lausen@amazon.com.INVALID<mailto:lausen@amazon.com.INVALID>>
wrote:
Consider a user finds a bug in a nightly version but we can't narrow
down the
version of mxnet used as the name is constant over time. Or users wan't
to
revert back to the previous nightly version installed but don't know
which date
it was from due to constant name.

Instead I suggest we introduce an autogenerated page like
https://download.pytorch.org/whl/nightly/cu101/torch_nightly.html

Then "pip install -f URLTOPAGE mxnet" will install the latest available
version.
Maybe the team maintaining the S3 bucket can reconsider creating such
page for
the intermediate time until the CD based nighlty build is operating.

On Mon, 2020-01-06 at 10:01 -0800, Lin Yuan wrote:
+1 for a nightly pip with fixed name.

We need this to track mxnet integration with other packages such as
Horovod.

Sam, when do you think we can have this nightly build with a fixed
name?

Thanks,

Lin

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:48 PM Skalicky, Sam
<sskalic@amazon.com.invalid<mailto:sskalic@amazon.com.invalid>>
wrote:

Hi Tao,

We dont have this yet, but we did think about putting the latest
wheels in
a specific place in the s3 bucket so they are always updated.
Initially we
decided not to do this since the main MXNet CD should have been
fixed. But
since its still not fixed yet, we might try and go ahead and do
this.

Sam

On Jan 5, 2020, at 6:02 PM, Lv, Tao A <tao.a.lv@intel.com<mailto:tao.a.lv@intel.com><mailto:
tao.a.lv@intel.com<mailto:tao.a.lv@intel.com>>> wrote:

Hi,

How to install the latest available build of a flavor without
specifying
the build date? Something like `pip install mxnet --pre`.

Thanks,
-tao

-----Original Message-----
From: Skalicky, Sam <sskalic@amazon.com.INVALID<mailto:sskalic@amazon.com.INVALID><mailto:
sskalic@amazon.com.INVALID<mailto:sskalic@amazon.com.INVALID>>>
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 2:09 AM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org><mailto:
dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Stopping nightly releases to Pypi

Hi Haibin,

You typed the correct URLs, the cu100 build has been failing since
December 30th but other builds have succeeded. The wheels are being
delivered into a public bucket that anyone with an AWS account can
access
and go poke around, here’s the URL for web access:




https://s3.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/apache-mxnet/dist/2020-01-01/dist/?region=us-west-2&tab=overview

You will have to log into your AWS account to access it however
(which
means you’ll need an AWS account).

It looks like only the following flavors are available for
2020-01-01:
mxnet
mxnet-cu92
mxnet-cu92mkl
mxnet-mkl

Sam

On Jan 4, 2020, at 9:06 PM, Haibin Lin <haibin.lin.aws@gmail.com
<mailto:
haibin.lin.aws@gmail.com><mailto:haibin.lin.aws@gmail.com>> wrote:

I was trying the nightly builds, but none of them is available:

pip3 install



https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-01/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200101-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
--user
<


https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-01/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200101-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl--user

pip3 install



https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-02/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200102-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
--user
<


https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-02/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200102-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl--user

pip3 install



https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
--user
<


https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl--user

pip3 install



https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-04/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200104-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
--user
<


https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-04/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200104-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl--user


ERROR: Could not install requirement mxnet-cu100==1.6.0b20200103
from


https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
because of HTTP error 404 Client Error: Not Found for url:



https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
for URL



https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl

Please let me know if I typed wrong URLs.

1. The discoverability of available nightly builds needs
improvement. If
someone can help write a script to list all links that exist, that
would be
very helpful.
2. If any nightly build is not built successfully, how do the
community
know the reason of the failure, and potentially offer helps?
Currently I
don't have much visibility of the nightly build status.

Best,
Haibin


On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 5:47 PM Pedro Larroy <
pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
<mailto:pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Just to clarify, the current CI is quite an overhead to maintain
for
several reasons, this complexity is overkill for CD. Jenkins also
has
constant plugin upgrades, security vulnerabilities, has to be
restarted
from time to time as it stops working... and to make binary builds
from an
environment which runs unsafe code, I don't think is good practice.
So for
that, having a separate Jenkins, CodeBuild, Drone or using a
separate
Jenkins node is the right solution. Agree with you that is just a
scheduler, but somebody is making efforts to keep it running. If
you
have
the appetite and resources to duplicate it for CD please go ahead.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:25 PM Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
<mailto:marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Regarding your point of finding somebody to maintain the solution:
At
Apache we usually retire things if there's no maintainer, since
that
indicates that the feature/system is not of enough interest to
warrant
maintenance - otherwise, someone would step up.

While assistance in the form of a fix is always appreciated, the
fix
still
has to conform with the way this project and Apache operates. Next
time I'd
recommend to contribute time on improving the existing community
solution
instead of developing an internal system.

-Marco

Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@gmail.com<mailto:
marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>>
schrieb am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020,
00:21:

Sam, while I understand that this solution was developed out of
necessity,
my question why a new system has been developed instead of fixing
the
existing one or adapting the solution. CodeBuild is a scheduler in
the same
fashion as Jenkins is. It runs code. So you can adapt it to Jenkins
without
much hassle.

I'm not volunteering for this - why should I? The role of a PMC
member is
to steer the direction of the project. Just because a manager
points
towards a certain direction, if doesn't mean that they're going to
do it.

Apparently there was enough time at some point to develop a new
solution
from scratch. It might have been a solution for your internal team
and
that's fine, but upgrading it "temporarily" to be the advertised
way
on the
official website is something different.

I won't argue about how the veto can be enforced. I think it's in
the best
interest of the project if we try working on a solution instead of
spending
time on trying to figure out the power of the PMC.

Pedro, that's certainly a step towards the right direction. But
committers
would also need access to the control plane of the system - to
trigger,
stop and audit builds. We could go down that road, but i think the
fewer
systems, the better - also for the sake of maintainability.

Best regards,
Marco



Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com<mailto:
pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>> schrieb am Fr., 3. Jan.
2020,
20:55:

I'm not involved in such efforts, but one possibility is to have
the
yaml
files that describe the pipelines for CD in the Apache
repositories,
would
that be acceptable from the Apache POV? In the end they should be
very thin
and calling the scripts that are part of the CD packages.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 6:56 AM Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
<mailto:marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Agree, but the question how a non Amazonian is able to maintain and
access
the system is still open. As it stands right now, the community has
taken a
step back and loses some control if we continue down that road.

I personally am disapproving of that approach since committers are
no
longer in control of that process. So far it seems like my
questions
were
skipped and further actions have been taken. As openness and the
community
having control are part of our graduation criteria, I'm putting in
my veto
with a grace period until 15th of January. Please bring the system
into a
state that aligns with Apache values or revert the changes.

-Marco

Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com<mailto:
pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>> schrieb am Fr., 3. Jan.
2020,
03:33:

CD should be separate from CI for security reasons in any case.


On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 10:04 AM Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
<mailto:marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Could you elaborate how a non-Amazonian is able to access, maintain
and
review the CodeBuild pipeline? How come we've diverted from the
community
agreed-on standard where the public Jenkins serves for the purpose
of
testing and releasing MXNet? I'd be curious about the issues you're
encountering with Jenkins CI that led to a non-standard solution.

-Marco


Skalicky, Sam <sskalic@amazon.com.invalid<mailto:
sskalic@amazon.com.invalid>> schrieb am Sa., 7.
Dez.
2019,
18:39:

Hi MXNet Community,

We have been working on getting nightly builds fixed and made
available
again. We’ve made another system using AWS CodeBuild & S3 to work
around
the problems with Jenkins CI, PyPI, etc. It is currently building
all the
flavors and publishing to an S3 bucket here:










https://us-west-2.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/apache-mxnet/dist/?region=us-west-2

There are folders for each set of nightly builds, try out the
wheels
starting today 2019-12-07. Builds start at 1:30am PT (9:30am
GMT)
and
arrive in the bucket 30min-2hours later. Inside each folder are the
wheels
for each flavor of MXNet. Currently we’re only building for linux,
builds
for windows/Mac will come later.

If you want to download the wheels easily you can use a URL in the
form
of:
https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/







<YYYY-MM-DD>/dist/<mxnet_build>-1.6.0b<YYYYMMDD>-py2.py3-none-
manylinux1_x86_64.whl

Heres a set of links for today’s builds

(Plain mxnet, no mkl no cuda)










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
(mxnet-mkl
<


https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-mkl

<








https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-mkl

)










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
(mxnet-cuXXX
<


https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXX

<








https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXX

)










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
(mxnet-cuXXXmkl
<


https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXXmkl

<








https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXXmkl

)










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl










https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl

You can easily install these pip wheels in your system either by
downloading them to your machine first and then installing by
doing:

pip install /path/to/downloaded/wheel.whl

Or you can install directly by just giving the link to pip like
this:

pip install









https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl

Credit goes to everyone involved (in no particular order) Rakesh
Vasudevan
Zach Kimberg Manu Seth Sheng Zha Jun Wu Pedro Larroy Chaitanya
Bapat

Thanks!
Sam


On Dec 5, 2019, at 1:16 AM, Lausen, Leonard
<lausen@amazon.com.INVALID
<mailto:lausen@amazon.com.INVALID> <mailto:
lausen@amazon.com.INVALID

wrote:

We don't loose pip by hosting on S3. We just don't host nightly
releases
on Pypi servers and mirror them to several hundred mirrors
immediately
after each build is published which is very expensive for the Pypi
project..
People
can
still
install the nightly builds with pip by specifying the -f option.

Uploading weekly releases to Pypi will reduce the cost for Pypi by
~75%
[1]. It may be acceptable to Pypi, but does it make sense for us?
I'm not
convinced weekly release on Pypi is a good idea. Consider one
release is
buggy, users will need to wait for 7 days for a fix. It doesn't
provide
good user experience.
If someone has a stronger conviction about the value of weekly
releases on
Pypi, that person shall please go ahead and propose it in a
separate
discussion thread.

Currently we don't have generally working nightly builds to Pypi
and
as a
matter of fact we know that we can't have them due to Pypi's policy
and our
apparent need for large binaries. Given this fact and that no
objection was
raised by
2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC, I conclude we have lazy consensus on
stopping
upload attempts of nightly builds to Pypi.

With consensus established, we can change the CI job to stop trying
to
upload the nightly builds and then request Pypi to increase the
limit.
Then
we
have one
less blocker for the 1.6 release.

Best regards
Leonard

[1]: Lower cost due to less releases, but higher cost due to 500MB
->
800MB limit increase. Assuming that the limit increase translates
into
actually larger binaries.


On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 22:20 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote:
Are weekly releases an option? It was brought up as concern that we
might
lose pip as a pretty common distribution channel where people
consume
nightly builds. I don't feel like that concern has been properly
addressed
so far.

-Marco

Lausen, Leonard <lausen@amazon.com.invalid<mailto:
lausen@amazon.com.invalid><mailto:
lausen@amazon.com.invalid<mailto:lausen@amazon.com.invalid>>>
schrieb am
Mi., 4. Dez. 2019,
04:09:

As a simple POC to test distribution, you can try installing MXNet
based
on these 3 URLs:

pip install --no-cache-dir











https://mxnet-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
pip install --no-cache-dir











https://mxnet-dev.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
pip install --no-cache-dir
https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/
mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl
<








https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl

<










https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl


where --no-cache-dir prevents caching the downloaded file, for the
purpose
of testing. (cu101 chosen based on large size)

The first URL uses standard S3 bucket in US. The second uses
S3
Accelerate
based
on CloudFront CDN. And the third uses CloudFront CDN. I'm adding
the
third
URL, as S3 Accelerate may or may not use all new CloudFront
endpoints yet.

Regarding voting: Uploading to Pypi is currently impossible, which
is a
reality (so there is no option to continue as we do currently).
Pypi
folks
indicated they will unblock our uploads to Pypi once we stop
uploading
nightly releases and taking up 20% of their ressources [1].

If there are any shortcomings or problems identified with uploading
to S3,
we can work to address them. But for now, status quo is broken and
this
seems the only solution addressing Pypi's problem.

I don't mind if you state that you object to lazy consensus and
start a
vote. If your "maybe [...] start a proper vote" was supposed to be
an
objection to lazy consensus, please state so clearly (I'm not sure
if
"maybe"
qualifies
as
objection). Though I think it only makes sense with at least 2
options to
vote on. Status quo is not a meaningful option, as it is already
broken.

Best regards
Leonard

[1]:


https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50#issuecomment-560479706

On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 19:28 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote:
Excellent! Could we maybe come up with a POC and a quick writeup
and
then
start a proper vote after everyone verified that it covers their
use-cases?
-Marco

Sheng Zha <zhasheng@apache.org<mailto:zhasheng@apache.org>>
schrieb
am
Di., 3. Dez. 2019,
19:24:

Yes, there is. We can also make it easier to access by using a
geo-location based DNS server so that China users are directed to
that
local mirror. The rest of the world is already covered by the
global
cloudfront.

-sz

On 2019/12/03 18:22:22, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
<mailto:
marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>

wrote:
Isn't there an s3 endpoint in Beijing?

It seems like this topic still warrants some discussion and thus
I'd

prefer
if we don't move forward with lazy consensus.

-Marco

Tao Lv <mutouorz@gmail.com<mailto:mutouorz@gmail.com>> schrieb am
Di., 3.
Dez. 2019,
14:31:

* For pypi, we can use mirrors.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:28 PM Tao Lv <mutouorz@gmail.com<mailto:
mutouorz@gmail.com>>
wrote:

As we have many users in China, I'm considering the accessibility
of
S3.
For pip, we can mirrors.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:24 PM Lausen, Leonard

<lausen@amazon.com.invalid<mailto:lausen@amazon.com.invalid>
wrote:

I would like to remind everyone that lazy consensus is assumed if
no
objections are raised before 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC. There has
been
some

discussion
about
the proposal, but to my understanding no objections were raised.
If the proposal is accepted, MXNet releases would be installed via
pip
install mxnet

And release candidates via

pip install --pre mxnet

(or with the respective cuda version specifier appended etc.)

To obtain releases built automatically from the master branch,
users
would
need to specify something like "-f
http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-X/nightly.html" option to pip.
Best regards
Leonard

On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 05:42 +0000, Lausen, Leonard wrote:
Hi MXNet Community,

since more than 2 months our binary Python nightly releases

published
on Pypi
are broken. The problem is that our binaries exceed Pypi's size
limit.
Decreasing the binary size by adding compression breaks

third-party
libraries
loading libmxnet.so

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16193
Sheng requested Pypi to increase their size limit:
https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50

Currently "the biggest cost for PyPI from [the many MXNet binaries
with
nightly release to Pypi] is the bandwidth consumed when several
hundred
mirrors attempt to mirror each release immediately after it's
published".
So Pypi is not inclined to allow us to upload even larger binaries
on a
nightly schedule.
Their compromise is to allow it on a weekly cadence.

However, I would like the community to revisit the necessity of
releasing
pre- release binaries to Pypi on a nightly (or weekly) cadence.

Instead, we
can
release nightly binaries ONLY to a public S3 bucket and instruct
users to
install from there. On our side, we only need to prepare a html
document
that contains links to all released nightly binaries.
Finally users will install the nightly releases via

pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 -f

http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/
nightly.html

Instead of

pip install --pre mxnet-cu101

Of course proper releases and release candidates should still be
made
available via Pypi. Thus releases would be installed via

pip install mxnet-cu101

And release candidates via

pip install --pre mxnet-cu101

This will substantially reduce the costs of the Pypi project and in
fact
matches the installation experience provided by PyTorch. I don't
think the
benefit of not including "-f

http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/nightly.html"
matches the costs we currently externalize to the Pypi team.

This suggestion seems uncontroversial to me. Thus I would like to
start
lazy consensus. If there are no objections, I will assume lazy

consensus on
stopping
nightly releases to Pypi in 72hrs.

Best regards
Leonard







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