Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/651/
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/650/
-1
Please see inline.
On Nov 19, 2017 12:51 PM, "Eric Xie" wrote:
Hi all,
I'm starting this thread to vote on turning off protected master. The
reasons are:
1. Since we turned on protected master pending PRs has grown from 40 to 80.
It is severely slowing down development.
Turning prote
Committer right is a privilege. If someone keeps merging untested code and
refuses to fix the problems they have caused then he or she shouldn't be a
committer.
Using protected master doesn't guarantee that code is well tested. You can
disable the test and merge code instead of actually fixing
A possible compromise could be that we turn off protection for master
branch for the Apache infra only with plans to turn protection back on when
new CI is up.
Furthermore, if something is merged in prematurely that breaks master for
some number of time (ie 3), then we turn protection back on imme
My +1 vote stands. The vote is about what we should do right now, not where we
should be ideally in 3 months. I don’t think we can move forward without
disabling the branch protection, because current CI is not in any state to base
the merge-decisions on. For example, here’s why:
1. Master branc
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/647/
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/648/
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/649/
Hello,
-1 (non binding)
Who is going to be responsible for changes breaking tests and having other
side effects after they have been merged? I'm afraid that this will harm
further development. At the moment I'm the responsible person for setting
up the new CI and so far have my results shown that
Revised:
+1 at least until new CI is implemented. Then reevaluate.
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:07 PM Chris Olivier wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:52 PM Zha, Sheng wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Best regards,
>> -sz
>>
>> On 11/19/17, 12:51 PM, "Eric Xie" wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I'm
+1
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:52 PM Zha, Sheng wrote:
> +1
>
> Best regards,
> -sz
>
> On 11/19/17, 12:51 PM, "Eric Xie" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I'm starting this thread to vote on turning off protected master. The
> reasons are:
>
> 1. Since we turned on protected master pending PRs
Hi all,
I'm starting this thread to vote on turning off protected master. The reasons
are:
1. Since we turned on protected master pending PRs has grown from 40 to 80. It
is severely slowing down development.
2. Committers, not CI, are ultimately responsible for the code they merge. You
should
+1
Best regards,
-sz
On 11/19/17, 12:51 PM, "Eric Xie" wrote:
Hi all,
I'm starting this thread to vote on turning off protected master. The
reasons are:
1. Since we turned on protected master pending PRs has grown from 40 to 80.
It is severely slowing down development.
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/645/
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/644/
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/640/
17 matches
Mail list logo
