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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > 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 < > > > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
