I'm not involved in such efforts, but one possibility is to have the yaml files that describe the pipelines for CD in the Apache repositories, would that be acceptable from the Apache POV? In the end they should be very thin and calling the scripts that are part of the CD packages.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 6:56 AM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree, but the question how a non Amazonian is able to maintain and access > the system is still open. As it stands right now, the community has taken a > step back and loses some control if we continue down that road. > > I personally am disapproving of that approach since committers are no > longer in control of that process. So far it seems like my questions were > skipped and further actions have been taken. As openness and the community > having control are part of our graduation criteria, I'm putting in my veto > with a grace period until 15th of January. Please bring the system into a > state that aligns with Apache values or revert the changes. > > -Marco > > Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 3. Jan. 2020, > 03:33: > > > CD should be separate from CI for security reasons in any case. > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 10:04 AM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Could you elaborate how a non-Amazonian is able to access, maintain and > > > review the CodeBuild pipeline? How come we've diverted from the > community > > > agreed-on standard where the public Jenkins serves for the purpose of > > > testing and releasing MXNet? I'd be curious about the issues you're > > > encountering with Jenkins CI that led to a non-standard solution. > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > > Skalicky, Sam <sska...@amazon.com.invalid> schrieb am Sa., 7. Dez. > 2019, > > > 18:39: > > > > > > > Hi MXNet Community, > > > > > > > > We have been working on getting nightly builds fixed and made > available > > > > again. We’ve made another system using AWS CodeBuild & S3 to work > > around > > > > the problems with Jenkins CI, PyPI, etc. It is currently building all > > the > > > > flavors and publishing to an S3 bucket here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://us-west-2.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/apache-mxnet/dist/?region=us-west-2 > > > > > > > > There are folders for each set of nightly builds, try out the wheels > > > > starting today 2019-12-07. Builds start at 1:30am PT (9:30am GMT) and > > > > arrive in the bucket 30min-2hours later. Inside each folder are the > > > wheels > > > > for each flavor of MXNet. Currently we’re only building for linux, > > builds > > > > for windows/Mac will come later. > > > > > > > > If you want to download the wheels easily you can use a URL in the > form > > > of: > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/ > > > > > > > > > > <YYYY-MM-DD>/dist/<mxnet_build>-1.6.0b<YYYYMMDD>-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > Heres a set of links for today’s builds > > > > > > > > (Plain mxnet, no mkl no cuda) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > (mxnet-mkl > > > > < > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-mkl > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > (mxnet-cuXXX > > > > < > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXX > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > (mxnet-cuXXXmkl > > > > < > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXXmkl > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > You can easily install these pip wheels in your system either by > > > > downloading them to your machine first and then installing by doing: > > > > > > > > pip install /path/to/downloaded/wheel.whl > > > > > > > > Or you can install directly by just giving the link to pip like this: > > > > > > > > pip install > > > > > > > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > Credit goes to everyone involved (in no particular order) > > > > Rakesh Vasudevan > > > > Zach Kimberg > > > > Manu Seth > > > > Sheng Zha > > > > Jun Wu > > > > Pedro Larroy > > > > Chaitanya Bapat > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2019, at 1:16 AM, Lausen, Leonard > <lau...@amazon.com.INVALID > > > > <mailto:lau...@amazon.com.INVALID>> wrote: > > > > > > > > We don't loose pip by hosting on S3. We just don't host nightly > > releases > > > > on Pypi > > > > servers and mirror them to several hundred mirrors immediately after > > each > > > > build > > > > is published which is very expensive for the Pypi project.. People > can > > > > still > > > > install the nightly builds with pip by specifying the -f option. > > > > > > > > Uploading weekly releases to Pypi will reduce the cost for Pypi by > ~75% > > > > [1]. It > > > > may be acceptable to Pypi, but does it make sense for us? I'm not > > > convinced > > > > weekly release on Pypi is a good idea. Consider one release is buggy, > > > > users will > > > > need to wait for 7 days for a fix. It doesn't provide good user > > > experience. > > > > If someone has a stronger conviction about the value of weekly > releases > > > on > > > > Pypi, > > > > that person shall please go ahead and propose it in a separate > > discussion > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > Currently we don't have generally working nightly builds to Pypi and > > as a > > > > matter > > > > of fact we know that we can't have them due to Pypi's policy and our > > > > apparent > > > > need for large binaries. Given this fact and that no objection was > > raised > > > > by > > > > 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC, I conclude we have lazy consensus on > stopping > > > > upload > > > > attempts of nightly builds to Pypi. > > > > > > > > With consensus established, we can change the CI job to stop trying > to > > > > upload > > > > the nightly builds and then request Pypi to increase the limit. Then > we > > > > have one > > > > less blocker for the 1.6 release. > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Leonard > > > > > > > > [1]: Lower cost due to less releases, but higher cost due to 500MB -> > > > 800MB > > > > limit increase. Assuming that the limit increase translates into > > actually > > > > larger > > > > binaries. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 22:20 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote: > > > > Are weekly releases an option? It was brought up as concern that we > > might > > > > lose pip as a pretty common distribution channel where people consume > > > > nightly builds. I don't feel like that concern has been properly > > > addressed > > > > so far. > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.invalid<mailto: > > > > lau...@amazon.com.invalid>> schrieb am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019, > > > > 04:09: > > > > > > > > As a simple POC to test distribution, you can try installing MXNet > > based > > > on > > > > these 3 URLs: > > > > > > > > pip install --no-cache-dir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://mxnet-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > pip install --no-cache-dir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://mxnet-dev.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > pip install --no-cache-dir https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/ > > > > mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > < > > > > > > https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > > > > > > where --no-cache-dir prevents caching the downloaded file, for the > > > purpose > > > > of > > > > testing. (cu101 chosen based on large size) > > > > > > > > The first URL uses standard S3 bucket in US. The second uses S3 > > > Accelerate > > > > based > > > > on CloudFront CDN. And the third uses CloudFront CDN. I'm adding the > > > third > > > > URL, > > > > as S3 Accelerate may or may not use all new CloudFront endpoints yet. > > > > > > > > Regarding voting: Uploading to Pypi is currently impossible, which > is a > > > > reality > > > > (so there is no option to continue as we do currently). Pypi folks > > > > indicated > > > > they will unblock our uploads to Pypi once we stop uploading nightly > > > > releases > > > > and taking up 20% of their ressources [1]. > > > > > > > > If there are any shortcomings or problems identified with uploading > to > > > S3, > > > > we > > > > can work to address them. But for now, status quo is broken and this > > > seems > > > > the > > > > only solution addressing Pypi's problem. > > > > > > > > I don't mind if you state that you object to lazy consensus and > start a > > > > vote. If > > > > your "maybe [...] start a proper vote" was supposed to be an > objection > > to > > > > lazy > > > > consensus, please state so clearly (I'm not sure if "maybe" qualifies > > as > > > > objection). Though I think it only makes sense with at least 2 > options > > to > > > > vote > > > > on. Status quo is not a meaningful option, as it is already broken. > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Leonard > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50#issuecomment-560479706 > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 19:28 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote: > > > > Excellent! Could we maybe come up with a POC and a quick writeup and > > then > > > > start a proper vote after everyone verified that it covers their > > > > use-cases? > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > Sheng Zha <zhash...@apache.org> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, 19:24: > > > > > > > > Yes, there is. We can also make it easier to access by using a > > > > geo-location based DNS server so that China users are directed to > that > > > > local mirror. The rest of the world is already covered by the global > > > > cloudfront. > > > > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > > On 2019/12/03 18:22:22, Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > Isn't there an s3 endpoint in Beijing? > > > > > > > > It seems like this topic still warrants some discussion and thus I'd > > > > > > > > prefer > > > > if we don't move forward with lazy consensus. > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > Tao Lv <mutou...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, 14:31: > > > > > > > > * For pypi, we can use mirrors. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:28 PM Tao Lv <mutou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > As we have many users in China, I'm considering the > > > > accessibility of > > > > S3. > > > > For pip, we can mirrors. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:24 PM Lausen, Leonard > > > > > > > > <lau...@amazon.com.invalid > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I would like to remind everyone that lazy consensus is assumed > > > > if no > > > > objections > > > > are raised before 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC. There has been some > > > > > > > > discussion > > > > about > > > > the proposal, but to my understanding no objections were > > > > raised. > > > > If the proposal is accepted, MXNet releases would be installed > > > > via > > > > pip install mxnet > > > > > > > > And release candidates via > > > > > > > > pip install --pre mxnet > > > > > > > > (or with the respective cuda version specifier appended etc.) > > > > > > > > To obtain releases built automatically from the master branch, > > > > users > > > > would need > > > > to specify something like "-f > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-X/nightly.html"; option to > > > > pip. > > > > Best regards > > > > Leonard > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 05:42 +0000, Lausen, Leonard wrote: > > > > Hi MXNet Community, > > > > > > > > since more than 2 months our binary Python nightly releases > > > > > > > > published > > > > on Pypi > > > > are broken. The problem is that our binaries exceed Pypi's > > > > size > > > > limit. > > > > Decreasing the binary size by adding compression breaks > > > > > > > > third-party > > > > libraries > > > > loading libmxnet.so > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16193 > > > > Sheng requested Pypi to increase their size limit: > > > > https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50 > > > > > > > > Currently "the biggest cost for PyPI from [the many MXNet > > > > binaries > > > > with > > > > nightly > > > > release to Pypi] is the bandwidth consumed when several > > > > hundred > > > > mirrors > > > > attempt > > > > to mirror each release immediately after it's published". So > > > > Pypi > > > > is > > > > not > > > > inclined to allow us to upload even larger binaries on a > > > > nightly > > > > schedule. > > > > Their compromise is to allow it on a weekly cadence. > > > > > > > > However, I would like the community to revisit the necessity > > > > of > > > > releasing pre- > > > > release binaries to Pypi on a nightly (or weekly) cadence. > > > > > > > > Instead, we > > > > can > > > > release nightly binaries ONLY to a public S3 bucket and > > > > instruct > > > > users > > > > to > > > > install from there. On our side, we only need to prepare a > > > > html > > > > document that > > > > contains links to all released nightly binaries. > > > > Finally users will install the nightly releases via > > > > > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 -f > > > > > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/ > > > > nightly.html > > > > > > > > Instead of > > > > > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > > > > > > > > Of course proper releases and release candidates should > > > > still be > > > > made > > > > available > > > > via Pypi. Thus releases would be installed via > > > > > > > > pip install mxnet-cu101 > > > > > > > > And release candidates via > > > > > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > > > > > > > > This will substantially reduce the costs of the Pypi project > > > > and > > > > in > > > > fact > > > > matches > > > > the installation experience provided by PyTorch. I don't > > > > think the > > > > benefit of > > > > not including "-f > > > > > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/nightly.html"; > > > > matches the costs we currently externalize to the Pypi team. > > > > > > > > This suggestion seems uncontroversial to me. Thus I would > > > > like to > > > > start > > > > lazy > > > > consensus. If there are no objections, I will assume lazy > > > > > > > > consensus on > > > > stopping > > > > nightly releases to Pypi in 72hrs. > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Leonard > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
