Re: [DISCUSSION] Adding labels to PRs

I think option 1 and 3 would be good in combination. Meaningful titles should always be encouraged and adding a label during the merge process should only be a matter of seconds. I dislike option 2 because introduces an additional step, which also requires creating an account for JIRA, into the

Re: [VOTE] A Separate CI System for Apache MXNet (incubating)

+1 for 1) — Jenkins On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:14 PM Naveen Swamy wrote: > +1 on 1) > > > On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:59 PM, Steffen Rochel > wrote: > > > > voting for [1] > > We will need to setup testing on MAC. I will explore for AWS to cover the > >

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 607

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/607/

Re: [VOTE] A Separate CI System for Apache MXNet (incubating)

+1 on 1) > On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:59 PM, Steffen Rochel wrote: > > voting for [1] > We will need to setup testing on MAC. I will explore for AWS to cover the > costs. > Steffen > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM Meghna Baijal > wrote: > >>

Re: [VOTE] A Separate CI System for Apache MXNet (incubating)

voting for [1] We will need to setup testing on MAC. I will explore for AWS to cover the costs. Steffen On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM Meghna Baijal wrote: > Hi All, > A need has been identified for MXNet’s CI/CD setup to move away from the > Apache Jenkins Service.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Adding labels to PRs

When u create a Jira - the jira carries a label of 'New Feature', 'Bug', 'Task' etc..., there's no need to again label each PR individually as long as the Jira### is referenced in the PR. On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Meghna Baijal wrote: > Hello All, > >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Adding labels to PRs

I really like (2). Yes it is work to link each PR to a Jira. But it really helps users understand what they are getting. The Jira can contain the necessary context. Spark does this well: https://github.com/apache/spark/commits/master Madan > On Nov 9, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Meghna Baijal

[VOTE] A Separate CI System for Apache MXNet (incubating)

Hi All, A need has been identified for MXNet’s CI/CD setup to move away from the Apache Jenkins Service. Over the past few days there has been active discussion on the necessary and advanced features for such a system and the various options available. These are being tracked in this Google Doc

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Chris, The Windows slaves on apache use EIPs which makes it easier to replace/reboot/reconnect these instances. But, there are some reasons because of which EIPs cannot be used for ubuntu slaves Several workarounds are being explored for this. And one such solution is to use the aws codebuild

[DISCUSSION] Adding labels to PRs

Hello All, Currently, there is no process in place to identify the new features that go into every release. All the commits since the previous release are manually parsed to find the important changes that go into the release notes. In order to improve this process, I want to start a

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Pedro, I created a row for BuildBot in the doc. Do you want to add some pros and cons about it? It would be good to have all this information collected in one place. Meghna On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Larroy, Pedro wrote: > Thanks a lot for the document and leading the

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Thanks a lot for the document and leading the discussion. Does anybody have experience with a build system other than Jenkins? In the document we mention Teamcity as a possible option, and there’s also the second leading open source CI tool “Buildbot” which is not mentioned. I’m not sure if we