Thanks for your response Marco, I think you have totally missed my original point which was basically that someone volunteering effort on the CI is as important as someone contributing a feature. From my perspective this hasn't been the case, and we had to rely a lot on you and Sheng to submit fixes which required access, also to relay communication with Apache infra. Also in many cases we had to rely on you to channel fixes, PRs, disable tests etc. If the community is fine having this kind of bottleneck, fine with me. From my point of view and the feedback from myself and other people which contributed to CI this was not always a good experience. Having a welcoming and inclusive community is very important. I don't want to start a discussion on this, but invite the community to do a bit of soul searching on this topic, now that the infrastructure is open source.
Also I find surprising that you claim that you designed the CI yourself, when this was a joint work of many individuals, including the old Apache CI and additional contributions and code reviewers, people who were oncall for this service or the autoscaling approach which if I remember correctly came from a humble servant. Kellen did a lot of pair programming and code reviews. Obviously you have a done a lot of work on CI which has had a huge positive impact on the project and your recognition is well deserved. The technical details you mention on your email are perfectly true and valid. Below is a rough list of individuals who contributed to CI, I would like to thank all of them since without this work, we wouldn't be able to deliver with the quality that we have done in the past. pllarroy@mac:0: ~/d/m/ci [fc_higher_order_grad_2]> git log --pretty=format:%aN . | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | tail -n 10 6 Zach Kimberg 6 stu1130 7 Jake Lee 8 Aaron Markham 11 Lanking 12 Anton Chernov 13 perdasilva 26 Kellen Sunderland 34 Marco de Abreu 46 Pedro Larroy pllarroy@mac:0: ~/d/mxnet_ci_general [master]> git log --pretty=format:%aN | sort | uniq -c | sort -n 1 Gavin M. Bell 1 de Abreu 6 Bair 7 Kellen Sunderland 8 Jose Luis Contreras 14 perdasilva 20 Per Goncalves da Silva 29 Anton Chernov 39 Chance Bair 96 Pedro Larroy 209 Marco de Abreu Pedro. On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 3:18 PM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've heard this request multiple times and so far, I'm having issues > understanding the direct correlation between having committer permissions > and being able to manage CI. > > When I designed the CI, one of the tenets was maintainability and > accessbility for the community: I wanted to avoid that somebody needs > certain privileges in order to execute regular actions. The result was the > strong usage of Jenkinsfiles, Dockerfiles and the runtime functions. The > combination of these techniques allowed somebody to create a job from the > process flow level (Jenkinsfile), over the environment level (Dockerfile) > to the individual action level (runtime functions). This design basically > gives the community full access over the entire flow. > > The jobs that are configured to source only Jenkinsfile. Jenkins supports a > lot of different ways how to define pipelines, but I have made sure to > encourage everybody to use only Jenkinsfiles. This makes sure that no > configuration is done in the web-interface. This firs of all alleviates the > permission issue since there's literally no config in the web interface and > second it allows auditing since all changes have to be done in the MXNet > GitHub repository. > > Committers have elevated permissions in Jenkins. These contain the > permission to run, stop and configure jobs. All other permissions are > restricted to system administrators for the sake of ensuring stability of > the system. On the dev-CI on the other hand, we're happy to add people so > they can experiment as much as they want. The transition to prod-CI is then > assisted by me to ensure smooth operations and adhering to the best > practices (like using our Jenkinsfiles and Docker structure, for example). > > The only case where somebody would need elevated permissions is if they > would like to change system settings. But at that point, we're talking > about instance settings and AWS account configuration. Since that now > reaches into the next permission level, which is restricted to the donor of > the CI system - Amazon Web Services - this is something that not even PMC > members will receive. The same policy is in place for the official Apache > CI: Committers/PMCs can configure their job, but don't have system level > access to either Jenkins or the underlying AWS account for obvious reasons. > We're trying to stay in line with the same policy, but in the past I've > granted Jenkins administrator access to people who required elevated access > to properly do their job - Aaron Markham with regards to the website being > one example. > > This means that the only case when a contributor needs committer assistance > is the moment when somebody would like to set up a new Jenkins job. It > would be a matter of setting up the job to point to the persons branch - > Jenkins will then automatically pull the Jenkinsfile and thus no further > configuration is necessary and updates are directly consumed. Such a > request IMO is on the same level as us having to cut a ticket to Apache > INFRA to create a new job. > > With regards to speed: So far, I was the only "CI-Person" with committer > privileges. But due to our 4-eye-rule for PRs, I wasn't able to merge my > own changes anyways - most of them were reviewed by Sheng, for example. In > an emergency, I'm sure that somebody can be reached to assist since we > currently have 39 PMC members and 20 committers spanning multiple > timezones. > > For these reasons, I don't agree with the sentiment that contributors are > unable to effectively work with the CI system unless they have committer > privileges. > > Best regards, > Marco > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:33 AM Pedro Larroy < > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > As Marco has open sourced the bulk of the CI infrastructure donated from > > Amazon to the community, I would like to raise the recommendation that > the > > community takes action to help volunteers working on the CI have a better > > experience. In the past, it's my impression that there hasn't been much > > action granting PMC or committer privileges to engineers volunteering to > > help CI other than Marco. This would encourage more contributions and > help > > expedite critical fixes and corrective actions. I think this has not > > properly enabled those individuals to be as effective as they could, as > > well as the lack of recognition for such a critical activity. I'm not > sure > > about the cause but I believe this is something that should be rectified > > for future contributions and help on the CI front if improvements are > > desired. > > > > In spanish we have a saying: "es de bien nacido ser agradecido". > > > > Pedro. > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:03 PM Pedro Larroy < > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Aaron. This is difficult to diagnose, because I don't know what to > do > > > when the hash of the layer in docker doesn't match and decides to > rebuild > > > it. the r script seems not to have changed. I have observed this in the > > > past and I think is due to bugs in docker. Maybe Kellen is able to > give > > > some tips here. > > > > > > In this case you should use -R which is already in master. (you can > > always > > > copy the script on top if you are in an older revision). > > > > > > Another thing that worked for me in the past was to completely nuke the > > > docker cache, so it redonwloads from the CI repo. After that it worked > > fine > > > in some cases. > > > > > > These two workarounds are not ideal, but should unblock you. > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:39 AM Aaron Markham < > > aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Is -R already in there? > > >> > > >> Here's an example of it happening to me right now.... I am making > > >> minor changes to the runtime_functions logic for handling the R docs > > >> output. I pull the fix, then run the container, but I see the R deps > > >> layer re-running. I didn't touch that. Why it that running again? > > >> > > >> From https://github.com/aaronmarkham/incubator-mxnet > > >> f71cc6d..deec6aa new_website_pipeline_2_aaron_rdocs -> > > >> origin/new_website_pipeline_2_aaron_rdocs > > >> Updating f71cc6d..deec6aa > > >> Fast-forward > > >> ci/docker/runtime_functions.sh | 6 +++--- > > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > >> (base) ubuntu@ip-172-31-47-182:~/aaron/ci$ ./build.py > > >> --docker-registry mxnetci --platform ubuntu_cpu_r > > >> --docker-build-retries 3 --shm-size 500m /work/runtime_functions.sh > > >> build_r_docs > > >> build.py: 2019-08-16 18:34:44,639Z INFO MXNet container based build > > tool. > > >> build.py: 2019-08-16 18:34:44,641Z INFO Docker cache download is > > >> enabled from registry mxnetci > > >> build.py: 2019-08-16 18:34:44,641Z INFO Loading Docker cache for > > >> mxnetci/build.ubuntu_cpu_r from mxnetci > > >> Using default tag: latest > > >> latest: Pulling from mxnetci/build.ubuntu_cpu_r > > >> Digest: > > >> > sha256:7dc515c288b3e66d96920eb8975f985a501bb57f70595fbe0cb1c4fcd8d4184b > > >> Status: Downloaded newer image for mxnetci/build.ubuntu_cpu_r:latest > > >> build.py: 2019-08-16 18:34:44,807Z INFO Successfully pulled docker > cache > > >> build.py: 2019-08-16 18:34:44,807Z INFO Building docker container > > >> tagged 'mxnetci/build.ubuntu_cpu_r' with docker > > >> build.py: 2019-08-16 18:34:44,807Z INFO Running command: 'docker build > > >> -f docker/Dockerfile.build.ubuntu_cpu_r --build-arg USER_ID=1000 > > >> --build-arg GROUP_ID=1000 --cache-from mxnetci/build.ubuntu_cpu_r -t > > >> mxnetci/build.ubuntu_cpu_r docker' > > >> Sending build context to Docker daemon 289.8kB > > >> Step 1/15 : FROM ubuntu:16.04 > > >> ---> 5e13f8dd4c1a > > >> Step 2/15 : WORKDIR /work/deps > > >> ---> Using cache > > >> ---> afc2a135945d > > >> Step 3/15 : COPY install/ubuntu_core.sh /work/ > > >> ---> Using cache > > >> ---> da2b2e7f35e1 > > >> Step 4/15 : RUN /work/ubuntu_core.sh > > >> ---> Using cache > > >> ---> d1e88b26b1d2 > > >> Step 5/15 : COPY install/deb_ubuntu_ccache.sh /work/ > > >> ---> Using cache > > >> ---> 3aa97dea3b7b > > >> Step 6/15 : RUN /work/deb_ubuntu_ccache.sh > > >> ---> Using cache > > >> ---> bec503f1d149 > > >> Step 7/15 : COPY install/ubuntu_r.sh /work/ > > >> ---> c5e77c38031d > > >> Step 8/15 : COPY install/r.gpg /work/ > > >> ---> d8cdbf015d2b > > >> Step 9/15 : RUN /work/ubuntu_r.sh > > >> ---> Running in c6c90b9e1538 > > >> ++ dirname /work/ubuntu_r.sh > > >> + cd /work > > >> + echo 'deb http://cran.rstudio.com/bin/linux/ubuntu trusty/' > > >> + apt-key add r.gpg > > >> OK > > >> + add-apt-repository 'deb [arch=amd64,i386] > > >> https://cran.rstudio.com/bin/linux/ubuntu xenial/' > > >> + apt-get update > > >> Ign:1 http://cran.rstudio.com/bin/linux/ubuntu trusty/ InRelease > > >> > > >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:32 AM Pedro Larroy > > >> <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Also, I forgot, another workaround is that I added the -R flag to > the > > >> build > > >> > logic (build.py) so the container is not rebuilt for manual use. > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:18 AM Pedro Larroy < > > >> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Aaron. > > >> > > > > >> > > As Marco explained, if you are in master the cache usually works, > > >> there's > > >> > > two issues that I have observed: > > >> > > > > >> > > 1 - Docker doesn't automatically pull the base image (ex. > > >> ubuntu:16.04) so > > >> > > if your cached base which is used in the FROM statement becomes > > >> outdated > > >> > > your caching won't work. (Using docker pull ubuntu:16.04) or the > > base > > >> > > images from the container helps with this. > > >> > > > > >> > > 2 - There's another situation where the above doesn't help which > > >> seems to > > >> > > be an unidentified issue with the docker cache: > > >> > > https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io/issues/8886 > > >> > > > > >> > > We can get a short term workaround for #1 by explicitly pulling > > bases > > >> from > > >> > > the script, but I think docker should do it when using > --cache-from > > so > > >> > > maybe contributing a patch to docker would the best approach. > > >> > > > > >> > > Pedro > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:06 PM Aaron Markham < > > >> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> When you create a new Dockerfile and use that on CI, it doesn't > > seem > > >> > >> to cache some of the steps... like this: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Step 13/15 : RUN /work/ubuntu_docs.sh > > >> > >> ---> Running in a1e522f3283b > > >> > >> [91m+ echo 'Installing dependencies...' > > >> > >> + apt-get update > > >> > >> [0mInstalling dependencies. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Or this.... > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Step 4/13 : RUN /work/ubuntu_core.sh > > >> > >> ---> Running in e7882d7aa750 > > >> > >> [91m+ apt-get update > > >> > >> > > >> > >> I get if I was changing those scripts, but then I'd think it > should > > >> > >> cache after running it once... but, no. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:51 PM Marco de Abreu < > > >> marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Do I understand it correctly that you are saying that the > Docker > > >> cache > > >> > >> > doesn't work properly and regularly reinstalls dependencies? Or > > do > > >> you > > >> > >> mean > > >> > >> > that you only have cache misses when you modify the > dependencies > > - > > >> which > > >> > >> > would be expected? > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -Marco > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:48 AM Aaron Markham < > > >> > >> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Many of the CI pipelines follow this pattern: > > >> > >> > > Load ubuntu 16.04, install deps, build mxnet, then run some > > >> tests. Why > > >> > >> > > repeat steps 1-3 over and over? > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Now, some tests use a stashed binary and docker cache. And I > > see > > >> this > > >> > >> work > > >> > >> > > locally, but for the most part, on CI, you're gonna sit > > through a > > >> > >> > > dependency install. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I noticed that almost all jobs use an ubuntu setup that is > > fully > > >> > >> loaded. > > >> > >> > > Without cache, it can take 10 or more minutes to build. So I > > >> made a > > >> > >> lite > > >> > >> > > version. Takes only a few minutes instead. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > In some cases archiving worked great to share across > pipelines, > > >> but as > > >> > >> > > Marco mentioned we need a storage solution to make that > happen. > > >> We > > >> > >> can't > > >> > >> > > archive every intermediate artifact for each PR. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 13:47 Pedro Larroy < > > >> > >> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi Aaron. Why speeds things up? What's the difference? > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Pedro. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:39 PM Aaron Markham < > > >> > >> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > The PRs Thomas and I are working on for the new docs and > > >> website > > >> > >> share > > >> > >> > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > mxnet binary in the new CI pipelines we made. Speeds > things > > >> up a > > >> > >> lot. > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 18:16 Chris Olivier < > > >> cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > I see it done daily now, and while I can’t share all > the > > >> > >> details, > > >> > >> > > it’s > > >> > >> > > > > not > > >> > >> > > > > > an incredibly complex thing, and involves not much more > > >> than > > >> > >> nfs/efs > > >> > >> > > > > > sharing and remote ssh commands. All it takes is a > > little > > >> > >> ingenuity > > >> > >> > > > and > > >> > >> > > > > > some imagination. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:31 PM Pedro Larroy < > > >> > >> > > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Sounds good in theory. I think there are complex > > details > > >> with > > >> > >> > > regards > > >> > >> > > > > of > > >> > >> > > > > > > resource sharing during parallel execution. Still I > > think > > >> > >> both ways > > >> > >> > > > can > > >> > >> > > > > > be > > >> > >> > > > > > > explored. I think some tests run for unreasonably > long > > >> times > > >> > >> for > > >> > >> > > what > > >> > >> > > > > > they > > >> > >> > > > > > > are doing. We already scale parts of the pipeline > > >> horizontally > > >> > >> > > across > > >> > >> > > > > > > workers. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:12 PM Chris Olivier < > > >> > >> > > > cjolivie...@apache.org> > > >> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > +1 > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > Rather than remove tests (which doesn’t scale as a > > >> > >> solution), why > > >> > >> > > > not > > >> > >> > > > > > > scale > > >> > >> > > > > > > > them horizontally so that they finish more quickly? > > >> Across > > >> > >> > > > processes > > >> > >> > > > > or > > >> > >> > > > > > > > even on a pool of machines that aren’t necessarily > > the > > >> build > > >> > >> > > > machine? > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM Marco de Abreu < > > >> > >> > > > > > marco.g.ab...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > With regards to time I rather prefer us spending > a > > >> bit > > >> > >> more > > >> > >> > > time > > >> > >> > > > on > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > maintenance than somebody running into an error > > that > > >> > >> could've > > >> > >> > > > been > > >> > >> > > > > > > caught > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > with a test. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > I mean, our Publishing pipeline for Scala GPU has > > >> been > > >> > >> broken > > >> > >> > > for > > >> > >> > > > > > quite > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > some time now, but nobody noticed that. Basically > > my > > >> > >> stance on > > >> > >> > > > that > > >> > >> > > > > > > > matter > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > is that as soon as something is not blocking, you > > can > > >> > >> also just > > >> > >> > > > > > > > deactivate > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > it since you don't have a forcing function in an > > open > > >> > >> source > > >> > >> > > > > project. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > People will rarely come back and fix the errors > of > > >> some > > >> > >> nightly > > >> > >> > > > > test > > >> > >> > > > > > > that > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > they introduced. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -Marco > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> schrieb am > Mi., > > >> 14. > > >> > >> Aug. > > >> > >> > > > 2019, > > >> > >> > > > > > > 21:59: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > If a language binding test is failing for a not > > >> > >> important > > >> > >> > > > reason, > > >> > >> > > > > > > then > > >> > >> > > > > > > > it > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > is too brittle and needs to be fixed (we have > > fixed > > >> > >> some of > > >> > >> > > > these > > >> > >> > > > > > > with > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Clojure package [1]). > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > But in general, if we thinking of the MXNet > > >> project as > > >> > >> one > > >> > >> > > > > project > > >> > >> > > > > > > that > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > is > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > across all the language bindings, then we want > to > > >> know > > >> > >> if > > >> > >> > > some > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > fundamental > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > code change is going to break a downstream > > package. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > I can't speak for all the high level package > > >> binding > > >> > >> > > > maintainers, > > >> > >> > > > > > but > > >> > >> > > > > > > > I'm > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > always happy to pitch in to provide code fixes > to > > >> help > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > > base > > >> > >> > > > > PR > > >> > >> > > > > > > get > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > green. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > The time costs to maintain such a large CI > > project > > >> > >> obviously > > >> > >> > > > > needs > > >> > >> > > > > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > > > be > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > considered as well. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > [1] > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15579 > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Pedro Larroy < > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > From what I have seen Clojure is 15 minutes, > > >> which I > > >> > >> think > > >> > >> > > is > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > reasonable. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > The only question is that when a binding such > > as > > >> R, > > >> > >> Perl or > > >> > >> > > > > > Clojure > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > fails, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > some devs are a bit confused about how to fix > > >> them > > >> > >> since > > >> > >> > > they > > >> > >> > > > > are > > >> > >> > > > > > > not > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > familiar with the testing tools and the > > language. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM Carin Meier > < > > >> > >> > > > > > carinme...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Great idea Marco! Anything that you think > > >> would be > > >> > >> > > valuable > > >> > >> > > > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > > > share > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > would > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > be good. The duration of each node in the > > test > > >> stage > > >> > >> > > sounds > > >> > >> > > > > > like > > >> > >> > > > > > > a > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > good > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > start. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - Carin > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:48 PM Marco de > > Abreu > > >> < > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > we record a bunch of metrics about run > > >> statistics > > >> > >> (down > > >> > >> > > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > duration > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > of > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > every individual step). If you tell me > > which > > >> ones > > >> > >> > > you're > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > particularly > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > interested in (probably total duration of > > >> each > > >> > >> node in > > >> > >> > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > test > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > stage), > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > happy to provide them. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dimensions are (in hierarchical order): > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - job > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - branch > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - stage > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - node > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - step > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I don't have the > possibility > > to > > >> > >> export > > >> > >> > > them > > >> > >> > > > > > since > > >> > >> > > > > > > > we > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > store > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > them in CloudWatch Metrics which afaik > > >> doesn't > > >> > >> offer > > >> > >> > > raw > > >> > >> > > > > > > exports. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marco > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> > schrieb > > >> am > > >> > >> Mi., 14. > > >> > >> > > > > Aug. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > 2019, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > 19:43: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to keep the language > > >> binding in > > >> > >> the PR > > >> > >> > > > > > > process. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > we > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > could do some analytics to see how much > > >> each of > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > > > > > language > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > bindings > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > is > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributing to overall run time. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we have some metrics on that, maybe > we > > >> can > > >> > >> come up > > >> > >> > > > > with > > >> > >> > > > > > a > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > guideline > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > of > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how much time each should take. Another > > >> > >> possibility > > >> > >> > > is > > >> > >> > > > > > > leverage > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > parallel builds more. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 PM Pedro > > >> Larroy < > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carin. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point, all things > > >> considered > > >> > >> would > > >> > >> > > your > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > preference > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > be > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Clojure tests as part of the PR > > >> process > > >> > >> or in > > >> > >> > > > > > Nightly? > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some options are having notifications > > >> here or > > >> > >> in > > >> > >> > > > slack. > > >> > >> > > > > > But > > >> > >> > > > > > > > if > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > we > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > think > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > breakages would go unnoticed maybe is > > >> not a > > >> > >> good > > >> > >> > > idea > > >> > >> > > > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > > > fully > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > remove > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings from the PR process and just > > >> > >> streamline > > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > > process. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:09 AM Carin > > >> Meier < > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > carinme...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before any binding tests are moved > to > > >> > >> nightly, I > > >> > >> > > > > think > > >> > >> > > > > > we > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > need > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out how the community can get > proper > > >> > >> > > notifications > > >> > >> > > > of > > >> > >> > > > > > > > failure > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > and > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > success > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on those nightly runs. Otherwise, I > > >> think > > >> > >> that > > >> > >> > > > > > breakages > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > would > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > go > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unnoticed. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Carin > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:47 PM > Pedro > > >> > >> Larroy < > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems we are hitting some > problems > > >> in CI. > > >> > >> I > > >> > >> > > > propose > > >> > >> > > > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > following > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > action > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > items to remedy the situation and > > >> > >> accelerate > > >> > >> > > turn > > >> > >> > > > > > > around > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > times > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > in > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > CI, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce cost, complexity and > > >> probability of > > >> > >> > > > failure > > >> > >> > > > > > > > blocking > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > PRs > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > frustrating developers: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Upgrade Windows visual studio > > from > > >> VS > > >> > >> 2015 to > > >> > >> > > > VS > > >> > >> > > > > > > 2017. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > The > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build_windows.py infrastructure > > >> should > > >> > >> easily > > >> > >> > > > work > > >> > >> > > > > > with > > >> > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > new > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently some PRs are blocked by > > >> this: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13958 > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move Gluon Model zoo tests to > > >> nightly. > > >> > >> > > Tracked > > >> > >> > > > at > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15295 > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move non-python bindings tests > to > > >> > >> nightly. > > >> > >> > > If a > > >> > >> > > > > > > commit > > >> > >> > > > > > > > is > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > touching > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings, the reviewer should ask > > >> for a > > >> > >> full > > >> > >> > > run > > >> > >> > > > > > which > > >> > >> > > > > > > > can > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > be > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > done > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > locally, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use the label bot to trigger a > full > > >> CI > > >> > >> build, > > >> > >> > > or > > >> > >> > > > > > defer > > >> > >> > > > > > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > nightly. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Provide a couple of basic > sanity > > >> > >> performance > > >> > >> > > > > tests > > >> > >> > > > > > on > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > small > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > models > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are run on CI and can be echoed > by > > >> the > > >> > >> label > > >> > >> > > bot > > >> > >> > > > > as a > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > comment > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > for > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Address unit tests that take > more > > >> than > > >> > >> > > 10-20s, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > streamline > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > them > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > or > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > move > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to nightly if it can't be > > done. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Open sourcing the remaining CI > > >> > >> infrastructure > > >> > >> > > > > > scripts > > >> > >> > > > > > > > so > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can contribute. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think our goal should be > > turnaround > > >> > >> under > > >> > >> > > > 30min. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to touch base > > with > > >> the > > >> > >> > > > community > > >> > >> > > > > > that > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > some > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > PRs > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being followed up by committers > > >> asking for > > >> > >> > > > changes. > > >> > >> > > > > > For > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > example > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > importtant and is hanging for a > > long > > >> time. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15051 > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is another, less important > but > > >> more > > >> > >> > > trivial > > >> > >> > > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > > > review: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14940 > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think comitters requesting > > changes > > >> and > > >> > >> not > > >> > >> > > > > > folllowing > > >> > >> > > > > > > > up > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > in > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not healthy for the > > project. > > >> I > > >> > >> suggest > > >> > >> > > > > > > > configuring > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > github > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notifications for a good SNR and > > >> > >> following up. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
