mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chaitanya Bapat <chai.ba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MXNet Bot Demo
Date Wed, 18 Mar 2020 08:30:18 GMT
Update:

>  we can ensure that all CI runs ran on the commit that will be merged
@Sam Skalicky <samskalicky@gmail.com> Branch Protection is added to public
MXNet repo. It ensures that for every PR to be merged, the CI passes. All
the jobs selected "required" jobs will have to be green for the PR to be
merged. Ofcourse, users with "Adminstrator" access can merge without it but
that's just a backdoor. It is the case now and will continue to be the case
with the inclusion of Bot.

> easily verify that the CI has executed all runs on the commit that will
be merged
GitHub UI shows all the jobs and the status corresponding to it on every
commit. That should suffice. For the merged commits, Repo -> Commits ->
Commit ID (Status) can be tracked currently (only way that I know of).
Moreover, it is beyond the scope of this project (and possibly out of our
control since this is purely GitHub UI specific use-case).

Thanks @przemyslaw for supporting the opt-in.

Thanks everyone in the community for sharing concerns, voicing your opinion
and participating in the discussion.
Thanks to those who attended the demo last Friday.

Action items from that discussion
1. Handle master merge builds [Done]
Bot runs entire CI suite after the PR is merged and comments on the PR
about the same.
Design decision :
MXNet Bot comment about master merge build on the *merge commit vs PR*.
After the PR is merged, Bot runs entire CI and comments the result of CI
trigger on the PR (because it is easy to track on a PR rather than
commenting inside the merge commit)

2. Idempotent condition
In case of already running build, if an attempt is made to retrigger the
job then what should be the response
a. Not to re-trigger, let the ongoing build continue till completion
b. End the ongoing build and re-trigger
c. Let the ongoing build continue, re-trigger new build

>From resource saving point of view, *c* looks costly and a can be
avoided/optimized by B.
In case when a re-trigger was started "erroneously" then killing ongoing
build and re-trigger is a waste.
In case when ongoing build failed in one sub-part, then re-triggering is
justified.
Erroneous re-triggers would be less often while conscious re-triggers to
suppress failure is more common use-case. It looks like a safe assumption
to make given the trade-off.
[Open to debate]

3. Add security consideration [Use of secret manager, but without
auto-rotation due to Jenkins manual config requirement] [Done]
4. New PR Instruction message by the Bot [Done]
Thanks to the suggestion of Leonard, supported by others. I've now added
the feature where the Bot comments a help message. [For reference -
https://github.com/ChaiBapchya/incubator-mxnet/pull/52]

Barring the opt-in vs opt-out debate & idempotency, consensus was quickly
reached for the rest.

In the coming days, I hope to roll-out this feature into Prod (public
MXNet) for all devs to use.

Thanks,
Chai

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 11:57, Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well that's generally a problem with a deferred CI approach (CI is run at
> commit and not at merge time). This can either be solved through the other
> proposal that's currently on dev@, by having a bot which does merges by
> having a global lock and a merge queue or by accepting the issue. Reality
> right now is that we're running that model where two PRs which are merged
> in parallel might break one another. One thing to consider though is that
> this breakage would have to be introduced in two separate parts since
> otherwise there'd be merge conflicts. I think we had that situation twice
> so far and the result was a quick revert, so I'd say that it's a problem
> that can happily be accepted. All other solutions basically require some
> form of single-threaded and globally locked solution which limits us in
> scalability. I'd recommend to just accept that risk and revert a PR in case
> it actually had a conflict.
>
> -Marco
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 6:29 PM Skalicky, Sam <sskalic@amazon.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > We probably need some way to track which CI runs ran for which commit
> too,
> > that way we can ensure that all CI runs ran on the commit that will be
> > merged.  Maybe the bot can comment with the commit hash when users
> command
> > it to do something. Although since users can trigger individual CI runs
> its
> > possible to have some commits run some CI runs but not others. We need
> some
> > way to easily verify that the CI has executed all runs on the commit that
> > will be merged.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > > On Mar 13, 2020, at 8:28 PM, Przemysław Trędak <ptrendx@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know
> > the content is safe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I personally like the idea of opt-in more than opt-out:
> > > - ultimately PR author wants the PR to be merged so they (or committer
> > reviewing the PR) will trigger the CI
> > > - if it is easy to trigger the PR via the bot command then the amount
> of
> > work per PR should be less than with opt-out (since most of the commits
> > should then be marked as [skip ci] or something similar
> > >
> > > +1 to the bot making a comment on each new PR with its commands (and
> > also explaining, or at least giving links to the general PR process so
> new
> > PR authors are not lost). Maybe we could make the bot recognize if the PR
> > author is new or existing contributor and offer advice based on that?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Przemek
> > >
> > > On 2020/03/13 22:06:58, Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> since it's no longer necessary to push a new commit to trigger CI, it
> > will
> > >> already reduce the costs. But to me, requiring an action to enable CI
> > after
> > >> a PR has been created initially, is a no go. User can opt out of CI,
> but
> > >> the default has to be CI being triggered automatically for every
> commit
> > >> unless specifically disabled by a participant. I'm also fine with
> > >> triggering certain additional jobs (think about running a nightly job
> > upon
> > >> request for a PR) to require a manual step, but the PR validation
> > pipelines
> > >> have to run automatically. Every check that is marked as "Required" in
> > >> GitHub has to be automatically kicked off.
> > >>
> > >> -Marco
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:50 PM Chaitanya Bapat <chai.bapat@gmail.com
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Firstly,
> > >>> Sorry I missed out on attaching the mail thread that was sent on 12th
> > >>> February for notifying the community of the upcoming changes to the
> > MXNet
> > >>> CI
> > >>> For reference :
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r09a6ab2803a996fc80e00fe39ed312fa4865e8805e08df847f1addad%40%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > >>>
> > >>> Now to the questions,
> > >>>> Is it possible for re-triggering a single job to be abused?
> > >>> @Tao In the case when a user re-triggers a single job multiple times,
> > that
> > >>> will be visible in the PR conversation thread. A committer, even
> after
> > he
> > >>> has approved the PR before, generally takes a look at the final state
> > of
> > >>> the PR before merging. Would it be fair to assume the committer could
> > take
> > >>> the multiple re-trigger of a single job into account before merging?
> > The
> > >>> committer then has the option to invoke `@mxnet-bot run ci [all] `
to
> > >>> trigger the entire build pipeline one last to counter the abuse. This
> > is
> > >>> aligned with what @Leonard said.
> > >>>
> > >>> @Sandeep Thanks a lot for collecting and sharing valuable data. I'd
> > concur
> > >>> with the opinion that given the existing things committers & PR
> Authors
> > >>> take care of, invoking CI shouldn't be that big of an additional
> > burden.
> > >>>
> > >>> @Marco With the opt-out, the onus remains on the PR Author. It
> doesn't
> > help
> > >>> reduce the resource usage. Hence, it was suggested to switch to
> > >>> opt-in. @Leo's suggestion for proactive commenting on the part of bot
> > makes
> > >>> sense and is doable.
> > >>>
> > >>> Default : opt-out and User initiated opt-in (with addressing Leo's
> fix
> > for
> > >>> the usability issue you correctly pointed out )
> > >>> @Marco How does this sound to you?
> > >>>
> > >>> Again, thank you all for chiming in and voicing your opinion.
> > Appreciate
> > >>> it.
> > >>> We can take ahead these discussions in today's demo meeting. [Design
> > Doc
> > >>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+CI+Bot>]
> > [Demo
> > >>> Video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfOGwZId8aU>]
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Chai
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 12:34, Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I'd recommend that the bot makes an initial comment when a PR gets
> > opened
> > >>>> and informs the users of its commands. It then tells the user the
> > commend
> > >>>> to opt out of CI.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Marco
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Lausen, Leonard <lausen@amazon.com.invalid> schrieb am Fr.,
13.
> März
> > >>> 2020,
> > >>>> 20:27:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On opt-out: People may be unaware of opt-out would not use
it.
> There
> > is
> > >>>> no
> > >>>>> incentive to use opt-out, as the PR author doesn't pay any
money
> for
> > CI
> > >>>>> run.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I agree with Marco though that opt-in alone may cause usability
> > issues,
> > >>>> as
> > >>>>> contributors may not be aware of how to trigger the CI.
> > >>>>> One solution is that the bot proactively comments on the PR
and
> > reminds
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>> author to trigger running CI once the author deems the PR ready.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But even if we choose opt-out, the bot will still add a lot
of
> value,
> > >>> as
> > >>>> PR
> > >>>>> authors can retrigger single jobs that have failed due to
> flakiness.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Is it possible for re-triggering a single job to be abused?
For
> > >>>> example,
> > >>>>>> the author spends two days re-triggering a flaky job to
make it
> > pass.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, this is possible. I suggest the committer who likes to
merge a
> > PR
> > >>>>> needs to
> > >>>>> make a good judgement here if a PR is abusing the feature,
and if
> so,
> > >>>>> retrigger
> > >>>>> all CI runs.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards
> > >>>>> Leonard
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, 2020-03-13 at 08:07 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote:
> > >>>>>> Thanks for the data Sandeep. In these cases it sounds like
it
> would
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>>> rather been better when people explicitly turned off CI
in that
> > case.
> > >>>>>> What's the argument against an opt-out instead of an opt-in?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My intention is that I consider it quite cumbersome to
make it a
> > >>>>> *required*
> > >>>>>> step to always trigger CI manually, even if just submitting
a
> small
> > >>> PR.
> > >>>>> I'd
> > >>>>>> rather see people explicitly turning off CI if they wouldn't
like
> to
> > >>>> use
> > >>>>> it
> > >>>>>> - and there's also the "draft" stage for a PR which some
> > contributors
> > >>>> are
> > >>>>>> using.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> With regards to WIP and do not review: I think these are
use cases
> > >>>> where
> > >>>>>> you want CI feedback, as otherwise you wouldn't have opened
the
> PR.
> > >>> If
> > >>>>> you
> > >>>>>> don't want human feedback and neither machine feedback,
why open
> the
> > >>> PR
> > >>>>> at
> > >>>>>> all?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -Marco
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> sandeep krishnamurthy <sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com>
schrieb am
> Fr.,
> > >>>> 13.
> > >>>>>> März 2020, 05:24:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I tried to gather some data for us to discuss this
topic in this
> > >>>>> thread. I
> > >>>>>>> tried to count number of un-necessary builds by looking
at most
> > >>>> recent
> > >>>>> (as
> > >>>>>>> of 12, March 9 PM PST) 50 PRs merged to master and
50 PRs.
> > >>>>>>> Identifying un-necessary builds is bit subjective.
I tried to be
> > >>> more
> > >>>>>>> conservative where I didn't count a build as un-necessary
if I
> was
> > >>> in
> > >>>>>>> doubt. Hence, I was not able to automate, but I made
an effort to
> > >>> go
> > >>>>>>> through PRs manually and use below criteria to identify
> > >>> un-necessary
> > >>>>>>> commits triggering the builds.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>   1. Explicitly marked as WIP / do not review  PR
> > >>>>>>>   2. Incremental WIP commit and finally commenting
a commit
> > >>> “trigger
> > >>>>> CI”
> > >>>>>>>   3. Multiple commits to address all comments from
single review.
> > >>>>> This is
> > >>>>>>>   assuming we see a comment, address them, commit,
next the
> > >>>> following
> > >>>>>>> comment
> > >>>>>>>   4. Sequence of documentation only changes
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I found there were around 42 avoidable builds from
most recent 50
> > >>>>> merged
> > >>>>>>> PRs and around 86 builds from recent 50 open PRs.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I synced up with other contributors (Joe Evans, Chai)
from Amazon
> > >>> who
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>>> contributing to MXNet CI system. I was told that on
an average it
> > >>>> costs
> > >>>>>>> around $84 per build and on an average 6 commits per
merged PR
> (for
> > >>>>> year
> > >>>>>>> 2019). Going by that, it is approximately 1/6 builds
are
> avoidable.
> > >>>>> [100 /
> > >>>>>>> 300 + 300 ]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Usability should be top most priority. But, since either
a
> reviewer
> > >>>> or
> > >>>>> pr
> > >>>>>>> author can trigger the bot, is it really a hurdle for
pr author
> or
> > >>>>> reviewer
> > >>>>>>> to call a bot to trigger CI? Given that PR author and
reviewer is
> > >>>>> already
> > >>>>>>> actively commenting various details such as - PR description,
> > >>> review
> > >>>>>>> comments and responses, adding labels etc.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Me too curious to know the behavior for Tao's above
use case.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Sandeep
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 7:18 PM Tao Lv <mutouorz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Is it possible for re-triggering a single job to
be abused? For
> > >>>>> example,
> > >>>>>>>> the author spends two days re-triggering a flaky
job to make it
> > >>>>> pass. But
> > >>>>>>>> other jobs which have passed the validation may
be broken by
> > >>> other
> > >>>>>>> commits
> > >>>>>>>> during the two day without being noticed. And finally
the PR is
> > >>>>> merged
> > >>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> underlying problems.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 6:19 AM Marco de Abreu
<
> > >>>>> marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> In the end it only comes down to money, considering
that the
> > >>>>> system is
> > >>>>>>>> auto
> > >>>>>>>>> scaling, making the execution time constant.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> If we're trading money for usability, I certainly
would prefer
> > >>>>>>> usability.
> > >>>>>>>>> I'd rather recommend to spend time on parallelizing
test
> > >>>> execution
> > >>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>> getting rid of integration tests in the PR
stage instead
> > >>> reducing
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> costs
> > >>>>>>>>> by making people not use it. But taking a step
back to
> > >>> requiring
> > >>>>> people
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> manually trigger CI again doesn't feel right.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'm happy to see that bot deployed, but I do
not agree with
> > >>>>> removing
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> auto trigger functionality for new commits.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> -Marco
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Chaitanya Bapat <chai.bapat@gmail.com>
schrieb am Do., 12.
> > >>> März
> > >>>>> 2020,
> > >>>>>>>>> 22:47:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> @Marco Thanks for pointing that out.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow i.e. Friday, March 13, 2020 at
3:00 PM - 3:30 PM in
> > >>>>>>>> (UTC-08:00)
> > >>>>>>>>>> Pacific Time (US & Canada).
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> When do we expect this bot to be deployed?
> > >>>>>>>>>> @Lin If all goes well in the next week
I can deploy it to
> > >>>> public
> > >>>>>>> Apache
> > >>>>>>>>>> (provided I get permissions from Apache
Infra)
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> @Marco Thanks for your feedback.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> CI system has to support the community
without requiring
> > >>>>> people to
> > >>>>>>>>>> constantly shepherd every single run
> > >>>>>>>>>> We have data for the number of times CI
was triggered
> > >>>>> unnecessarily
> > >>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>>>>>>> includes
> > >>>>>>>>>> - Entire build triggered instead of specific
build
> > >>>>>>>>>> - CI triggered when PR is still work in
progress or not yet
> > >>>> ready
> > >>>>>>> (say
> > >>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>>>> intermediate commits)
> > >>>>>>>>>> At the end its a trade-off
> > >>>>>>>>>> Money, Resources, Time to build for each
and every commit vs
> > >>>>> Pain of
> > >>>>>>>>>> triggering builds
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Scan trigger plugin would poll SCM.
Can we use plugin at
> > >>>>> scale?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. I haven't tested it on scale. But I
think with the current
> > >>>>> scale
> > >>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> MXNet repo (191 open PRs i.e. checking
for changes to 191
> > >>>>> branches -
> > >>>>>>> It
> > >>>>>>>>>> should be manageable)
> > >>>>>>>>>> 2. What's the purpose of the plugin? tldr;
Branch discovery
> > >>> or
> > >>>>> branch
> > >>>>>>>>>> indexing.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Scan trigger plugin comes into the picture
only once per PR
> > >>> per
> > >>>>> job
> > >>>>>>>>> (i.e. 8
> > >>>>>>>>>> times per PR for 8 jobs). It is basically
done when a new PR
> > >>> is
> > >>>>> made
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> the job (say unix-cpu hasn't discovered
the new PR branch
> > >>> yet).
> > >>>>>>> That's
> > >>>>>>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>>> So it shouldn't be a problem for public
MXNet repo.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>> Chai
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 14:22, Marco de
Abreu <
> > >>>>>>> marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Btw you forgot to set a date and time
for the metting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:18 PM Marco
de Abreu <
> > >>>>>>>>> marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Chai, I generally like the
idea of the bot. But
> > >>> I'm
> > >>>>> not a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> supporter
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> of the idea to disable any automatic
triggering
> > >>> (disabling
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> webhook
> > >>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> also not an option, considering
that this will disable
> > >>>> master
> > >>>>>>>>>> triggers).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The CI system has to support the
community without
> > >>>> requiring
> > >>>>>>> people
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> constantly shepherd every single
run. Disabling automatic
> > >>>>>>>> triggering
> > >>>>>>>>>>> seems
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> like a step back to me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, I'd recommend that CI
gets triggered upon every
> > >>>>> commit
> > >>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>>> usual,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> but people have the possibility
to call a "command" (i.e.
> > >>>>> make a
> > >>>>>>>>>> message
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> which results in the bot setting
a label) to disable CI
> > >>>> until
> > >>>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>>>>> revoke
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it. But the standard should still
be that a new commit
> > >>>>> triggers a
> > >>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>> CI
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> run.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>> https://plugins.jenkins.io/multibranch-scan-webhook-trigger/
> > >>>>>>>> seems
> > >>>>>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> this would poll SCM. This will
incur high quota
> > >>>>> restrictions. Are
> > >>>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>>> sure
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that you can use that plugin at
scale?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Marco
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:04 PM
Lin Yuan <
> > >>>>> apeforest@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chai,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Awesome work. When do we expect
this bot to be
> > >>> deployed?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:00
PM Chaitanya Bapat <
> > >>>>>>>>> chai.bapat@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello MXNet community,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have built an MXNet Bot
<
> > >>>> https://github.com/mxnet-bot>
> > >>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>> allows
> > >>>>>>>>>>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors, Committers and
Jenkins Admins to trigger CI
> > >>>>> manually.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It handles 2 problems
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Manual CI trigger instead
of existing automated CI
> > >>>>> trigger
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Gives permissions to
PR Authors (in addition to
> > >>>> MXNet
> > >>>>>>>>> Committers
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins Admins)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Design Doc :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+CI+Bot
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I urge you all to attend
the demonstration meeting
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> lend
> > >>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>> views
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chai
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Meeting Details*:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==============Conference
Bridge
> > >>>> Information==============
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been invited to
an online meeting, powered
> > >>> by
> > >>>>> Amazon
> > >>>>>>>>> Chime.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Chime meeting ID*: *9272158344*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Join via Chime clients
(manually): Select 'Meetings >
> > >>>>> Join a
> > >>>>>>>>>> Meeting',
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter 9272158344
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Join via Chime clients
(auto-call): If you invite
> > >>>>> auto-call as
> > >>>>>>>>>>> attendee,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chime will call you when
the meeting starts, select
> > >>>>> 'Answer'
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Join via browser screen
share*:
> > >>>>> https://chime.aws/9272158344
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Join via phone* (US):
+1-929-432-4463,,,9272158344#
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Join via phone (US toll-free)*:
> > >>>>> +1-855-552-4463,,,9272158344#
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> International dial-in:
> > >>>> https://chime.aws/dialinnumbers/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In-room video system: Ext:
62000, Meeting PIN:
> > >>>>> 9272158344#
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Chaitanya Prakash Bapat*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *+1 (973) 953-6299*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapat25]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/ChaiBapchya>[image:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/chaibapat
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/chaibapchya>[image:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ChaiBapchya]
<
> > >>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ChaiBapchya
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapat25]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapchya/>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> *Chaitanya Prakash Bapat*
> > >>>>>>>>>> *+1 (973) 953-6299*
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> [image: https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapat25]
> > >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/ChaiBapchya>[image:
> > >>>>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/chaibapat
> > >>>>>>>>>> ]
> > >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/chaibapchya>[image:
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/ChaiBapchya] <
> > >>>>> https://twitter.com/ChaiBapchya
> > >>>>>>>>>> [image:
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapat25]
> > >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapchya/>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> *Chaitanya Prakash Bapat*
> > >>> *+1 (973) 953-6299*
> > >>>
> > >>> [image: https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapat25]
> > >>> <https://github.com/ChaiBapchya>[image:
> > https://www.facebook.com/chaibapat
> > >>> ]
> > >>> <https://www.facebook.com/chaibapchya>[image:
> > >>> https://twitter.com/ChaiBapchya] <https://twitter.com/ChaiBapchya
> > >[image:
> > >>> https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapat25]
> > >>> <https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapchya/>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>


-- 
*Chaitanya Prakash Bapat*
*+1 (973) 953-6299*

[image: https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapat25]
<https://github.com/ChaiBapchya>[image: https://www.facebook.com/chaibapat]
<https://www.facebook.com/chaibapchya>[image:
https://twitter.com/ChaiBapchya] <https://twitter.com/ChaiBapchya>[image:
https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapat25]
<https://www.linkedin.com//in/chaibapchya/>

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