Good work Meghna and thanks to community members for participating in the discussion and providing valuable inputs. Yes please share the document again and ask for vote and more broader inputs.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the active discussion on the document for the new CI for > MXNet. > > Now that many of you have reviewed it, do you think I should start a vote > > on which framework the community wants to move forward with ? > > > > Thanks, > > Meghna > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > After a decision is reached, i am willing to add tasks to Apache MXNet > > JIRA > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Pedro Larroy < > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for setting up the document guys, looks like a solid basis to > > > > start to work on! > > > > > > > > Marco, Kellen and I have already added some comments. > > > > > > > > Pedro > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Meghna Baijal > > > > <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Kellen, Thank you for your comments in the doc. > > > > > Sure Steffen, I will continue to merge everyone’s comments into the > > doc > > > > and > > > > > work with Pedro to finalize it. > > > > > And then we can vote on the options. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Meghna Baijal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Steffen Rochel < > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Sandeep and Meghna have been working in background collecting > input > > > and > > > > >> preparing a doc. I suggest to drive discussion forward and would > > like > > > to > > > > >> ask everybody to contribute to > > > > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17PEasQ2VWrXi2Cf7IGZSWGZMawxDk > > > > >> dlavUDASzUmLjk/edit?usp=sharing > > > > >> > > > > >> Lets converge on requirements and architecture, so we can move > > forward > > > > with > > > > >> implementation. > > > > >> > > > > >> I would like to suggest for Pedro and Meghna to lead the > discussion > > > and > > > > >> help to resolve suggestions. > > > > >> > > > > >> I assume we need a vote once we are converged on a good draft to > > call > > > > it a > > > > >> plan and move forward with implementation. As we all are unhappy > > with > > > > the > > > > >> current CI situation I would also suggest a phased approach, so we > > can > > > > get > > > > >> back to reliable and efficient basic CI quickly and add advanced > > > > >> capabilities over time. > > > > >> > > > > >> Steffen > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:14 PM kellen sunderland < > > > > >> kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hey Henri, I think that's what a few of us are advocating. > > Running > > > a > > > > set > > > > >> > of quick tests as part of the PR process, and then a more > detailed > > > > >> > regression test suite periodically (say every 4 hours). This > fits > > > > nicely > > > > >> > into a tagging or 2 branch development system. Commits will be > > > tagged > > > > >> (or > > > > >> > merged into a stable branch) as soon as they pass the detailed > > > > regression > > > > >> > testing. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Random question - can the CI be split such that the Apache CI > is > > > > doing > > > > >> a > > > > >> > > basic set of checks on that hardware, and is hooked to a PR, > > while > > > > >> there > > > > >> > is > > > > >> > > a larger "Is trunk good for release?" test that is running > > > > periodically > > > > >> > > rather than on every PR? > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > ie: do we need each PR to be run on varied hardware, or can we > > > have > > > > >> this > > > > >> > > two tier approach? > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Hen > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM, sandeep krishnamurthy < > > > > >> > > sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Hello all, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I am hereby opening up a discussion thread on how we can > > > stabilize > > > > >> > Apache > > > > >> > > > MXNet CI build system. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Problems: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ======== > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Recently, we have seen following issues with Apache MXNet CI > > > build > > > > >> > > systems: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 1. Apache Jenkins master is overloaded and we see issues > > > like - > > > > >> > unable > > > > >> > > > to trigger builds, difficult to load and view the blue > > ocean > > > > and > > > > >> > other > > > > >> > > > Jenkins build status page. > > > > >> > > > 2. We are generating too many request/interaction on > Apache > > > > Infra > > > > >> > > team. > > > > >> > > > 1. Addition/deletion of new slave: Caused from scaling > > > > >> activity, > > > > >> > > > recycling, troubleshooting or any actions leading to > > > change > > > > of > > > > >> > > slave > > > > >> > > > machines. > > > > >> > > > 2. Plugins / other Jenkins Master configurations. > > > > >> > > > 3. Experimentation on CI pipelines. > > > > >> > > > 3. Harder to debug and resolve issues - Since access to > > > master > > > > and > > > > >> > > slave > > > > >> > > > is not with the same community, it requires Infra and > > > > community to > > > > >> > > dive > > > > >> > > > deep together on all action items. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Possible Solutions: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ============== > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 1. Can we set up a separate Jenkins CI build system for > > > Apache > > > > >> MXNet > > > > >> > > > outside Apache Infra? > > > > >> > > > 2. Can we have a separate Jenkins Master in Apache Infra > > for > > > > >> MXNet? > > > > >> > > > 3. Review design of current setup, refine and fill the > > gaps. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > @ Mentors/Infra team/Community: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ========================== > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Please provide your suggestions on how we can proceed > further > > > and > > > > >> work > > > > >> > on > > > > >> > > > stabilizing the CI build systems for MXNet. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Also, if the community decides on separate Jenkins CI build > > > > system, > > > > >> > what > > > > >> > > > important points should be taken care of apart from the > below: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 1. Community being able to access the build page for > build > > > > >> statuses. > > > > >> > > > 2. Committers being able to login with apache > credentials. > > > > >> > > > 3. Hook setup from apache/incubator-mxnet repo to Jenkins > > > > master. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Irrespective of the solution we come up, I think we should > > > > initiate a > > > > >> > > > technical design discussion on how to setup the CI build > > system. > > > > >> > > Probably 1 > > > > >> > > > or 2 pager documents with the architecture and review with > > Infra > > > > and > > > > >> > > > community members. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ***There were few proposal and discussion on the slack > > channel, > > > to > > > > >> > reach > > > > >> > > > wider community members, moving that discussion formally to > > this > > > > >> list. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > My Proposal: Option 1 - Set up separate Jenkins CI build > > system. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Sandeep > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > > >> > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- Sandeep Krishnamurthy
