Why revert the PR when we know there's a fix? If we keep going backwards like this, no progress can be made.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Mu Li <muli....@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree that major changes need more extensive reviews. But we cannot ignore > that both reviews and CI cannot catch all bugs. Reverting each PR after > finding a bug should be the last ways, before it, we should try to fix it > first. > > As for the breaking change, I see it differently. It breaks a not > recommended usage of the API from an unmaintained tutorial, I don't think > adding more reviewers will help it. > > Besides, I'm less sure if we can find enough reviewers to provide useful > feedbacks for major changes. > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > We revert a PR because it should not have been merged in the first place. > > So far, I have been ignoring the fact that our committers are constantly > > breaking our own rules (which we expect contributors to follow). But > since > > this caused an impact twice (1.2 breaking change about model > import/export > > as well as this regression), I'm now being more strict and enforcing > them. > > > > I could've also made a script that prevents any PR from being > self-merged, > > but I thought our committers are responsible enough to follow our own > rules > > without systems actually enforcing them. I won't waste my time working on > > that script, but from now on I will revert every single PR (except > > emergency cases) that has been self-merged without approval. > > > > -Marco > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:15 PM Mu Li <muli....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Why reverting instead of fixing the bugs? Static memory aims to reduce > > > memory allocation, it's a key feature to bridge the perf gap between > > gluon > > > and symbol. > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I'm reverting https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10817 > as > > of > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11311 due to > > regressions > > > > described in https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11171 > > and > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10817. > > > > > > > > The pull request has been self-merged without proper review and > > > introduced > > > > regressions. Committers should act as role models in this project and > > > > adhere to software engineer best practices. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > >
