Re: New Apache MXNet logo idea

Love :) Lots of good connections here. Nice feather style/colour in the bunny's silhouette, nice "magic" overlay for connection to Clarke's third law (any sufficiently deep learning is indistinguishable from magic), great name connection to 'mx' and the Chinese zodiac may, if appropriate, speak

Re: New Apache MXNet logo idea

Very attractive logo. Is it a depiction of pulling a rabbit out of a hat , i.e. doing things by magic? On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Seb Kiureghian wrote: > https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/591887/ >

Re: New Apache MXNet logo idea

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/591887/30987393-ba66e610-a44b-11e7-8226-da1711dcbdc5.jpg On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Madan Jampani wrote: > Is there a picture of Max? > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Seb Kiureghian > wrote: >

Re: New Apache MXNet logo idea

There are many other associations that people might have with a rabbit depending on their cultural and linguistic background, not all of them things we would want to have associated with MXNet. Free-associating as an English speaker: rabbits are associated with fertility (Easter), promiscuity

Re: New Apache MXNet logo idea

Is there a picture of Max? On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Seb Kiureghian wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a new idea for a logo that I'd like to propose. > > The rabbit (I call him Max) is blazingly fast, like MXNet, but also > friendly and approachable, like the Gluon

Re: MXNet Slack channel

Invited. Best regards, -sz On 9/28/17, 12:31 PM, "Jin Sun" wrote: Please give me an invite as well. Thanks, Jin 2017-09-28 12:14 GMT-07:00 Jean K : > Hi, > I would like to join the MXNet Slack Channel. >

Re: MXNet Slack channel

Please give me an invite as well. Thanks, Jin 2017-09-28 12:14 GMT-07:00 Jean K : > Hi, > I would like to join the MXNet Slack Channel. > Best, > Jean > -- *Jin Sun* Software Engineer II at Uber M.Eng. in ECE at Carnegie Mellon University

New Apache MXNet logo idea

Hi all, I have a new idea for a logo that I'd like to propose. The rabbit (I call him Max) is blazingly fast, like MXNet, but also friendly and approachable, like the Gluon interface. Do you all like it? Seb

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

+1 on protected branch. Best regards, -sz On 9/28/17, 11:48 AM, "Kumar, Gautam" wrote: Hi Guys, Let’s focus on specific issue here. Marking the master branch protected which involves “Only merge if checks has passed, and yes it will run the complete

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

Hi Guys, Let’s focus on specific issue here. Marking the master branch protected which involves “Only merge if checks has passed, and yes it will run the complete build”. We can’t afford to degrade the quality and keep debugging the build failure forever. If it’s slow down the development

Re: PR builds are currently failing due to a known issue

Naveen, I have reverted the changes and created a new PR. Can someone please merge this quickly - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8078 Thanks, Meghna Baijal > On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Daniel Pono Takamori

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

-1000 on that. :) On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:33 AM Naveen Swamy wrote: > PR->Sanity test/Linux build/test->reviewer/committer approves the > change->Comment "Build Now" (Or trigger on at least one approval from a > committer other than author)->*Full build-*>*passes

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

I understand the proposal. How to trigger a build in that case? On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:54 AM Madan Jampani wrote: > Chris, > I don't think Naveen is suggesting that a merge happen without full > verification i.e. all tests across all platforms pass. > If a PR has

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

Chris, I don't think Naveen is suggesting that a merge happen without full verification i.e. all tests across all platforms pass. If a PR has some back and forth and results in multiple revisions (which is arguably more common than a random unit test failing), we simply delay full verification

Re: PR builds are currently failing due to a known issue

Unfortunately we won't be able to enable all the Groovy methods for security reasons. Fortunately the Beam team has found some work arounds for this so I'm cc'ing them to connect you to figure out how to get around this issue. Jason, if you could point the MXNet folks to your builds repo so they

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

-1 for running only partial tests. Most failing unit tests that get through fail only for certain platforms/configurations. I personally prefer to be assured the build and test is good before merge. Most PR merges aren't in a huge hurry. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Naveen Swamy

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

> At a minimum I'd like to see the following two happen: > - Option to merge is disabled until all required checks pass. > - Code is reviewed and given +1 by at least one other committer (no self > review). I like this policy. In fact, Apache Hadoop community works with the policy too. Thanks

Re: PR builds are currently failing due to a known issue

Please revert this change until Apache Infra approve all the required scripts? I don't think we should let the PR builds continue to fail this long. On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Meghna Baijal wrote: > Hi All, > This is just to let everyone know that PR #8034 is

Re: CI system seems to be using python3 for python2 builds

Thanks for your sharing information. > 1. Looks like this backtrace has been present since long time, since this > was not a test failure or build failure we never got notified about it. Here > >

Re: CI system seems to be using python3 for python2 builds

Hi Gautam, I see that ‘nosetests’ is the command used to run python2 tests. It looks like that’s being mapped to use python3. I’ve checked that this is the case on my Ubuntu instance. I need to use ‘nosetests-2.7’ to use python2 for the tests. Please check if this fix works in the build

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

+1 on that On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:15 PM Gautam wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Here is > user > document on semantics of protected branch. > In short when a branch is protected following applies to that branch. > >

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify beforemerge

Thank you for the clarification. Agree force pushed are bad. I don't think anyone is doing this, though. I am curious though, and this may be an unpopular question, but is there precedent to tempoaraily disabling write access to people who merge in code that hasn't passed CI tests and thus break

Web site questions

Looking at the website ( https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet-site ), I've some questions: 1) Do we really need jenkins constantly committing date updates for doxygen? Is there a way to stop that 'generated by' text including the date? 2) Who is working on the website? There are some top

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

Hi Chris, Here is user document on semantics of protected branch. In short when a branch is protected following applies to that branch. - Can't be force pushed - Can't be deleted - Can't have changes merged into it until

RE: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify beforemerge

Looking at the email thread it means marking the master branch as protected in GitHub (a functionality they offer): https://help.github.com/articles/about-protected-branches/ Popular open source projects should at a minimum have force push disabled on their master branch to prevent broken

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

What does that mean? "Protected"? Protected from what? On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:08 PM Gautam wrote: > Hi Chris, > >I mean make "master branch protected" of MXNet. > > -Gautam > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > >

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

Hi Chris, I mean make "master branch protected" of MXNet. -Gautam On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > What does this mean? "Mx-net branch protected"? > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM Tsuyoshi OZAWA > wrote: > > >

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

What does this mean? "Mx-net branch protected"? On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM Tsuyoshi OZAWA wrote: > +1, > > While I'm checking the recent build failures, and I think the decision > of making the mx-net branch protected is necessary for stable > building. > Thanks