+1 for (1)
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. Over the past few days there has been active
> discussion on the necessary and advanced features for such a system and th
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 wrote:
>
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 interface.
>
> Do you all li
latform->committer reviews the
> > code and issues "Build Now", a full build is run->Github checks that the
> > full build checks succeed before it can be merged.
> >
> > I agree with Madan that PR should be approved by one another committer.
> >
> >
&
> not
> > > > > seen any case where instance died due to high memory usage or any
> > > process
> > > > > got killed due to high cpu usage or any other issue with windows
> > > slaves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Going f
e code-review
>> and only
>> > after sufficient amount of sanity build-tests have passed.
>> >
>> > Let the machines work harder for humans and not the other way
>> around.
>> >
>> > Bhavin Thaker.
>>
+1
I second only running sanity test (lint) until manual approval.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Naveen Swamy wrote:
> Just to be clear, the proposal is not to remove the PR build. It's only to
> delay the PR build until a reviewer has looked at it and marks it Approved
> or adds a Label to
;Zha, Sheng" wrote:
>
> Just one thing: please don’t disable more tests or just raise the
> tolerance thresholds.
>
> Best regards,
> -sz
>
> On 8/31/17, 10:45 AM, "Madan Jampani" wrote:
>
> +1
> Before we can t
+1
Before we can turn protected mode I feel we should first get to a stable CI
pipeline.
Sandeep is chasing down known breaking issues.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Hagay Lupesko wrote:
> Build stability is a major issue, builds have been failing left and right
> over the last week. Some o
ition, since this is a global initiative, some worthy contributors
> may struggle with English...
>
>
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Madan Jampani
> wrote:
>
> > All, I captured the comments and general feedback that emerged from this
&g
All, I captured the comments and general feedback that emerged from this
discussion into a set of guidelines for when someone can become a committer
and what record of contributions they need to have to strengthen their
case. It also has a link to a nomination template Tianqi created for a
specific
There is a middle ground here. Instead of saying someone either has full
committer privileges or zero, an alternative is to have scope of ownership
start small and localized to modules or source folders where their primary
contributions currently lie. For example, there are folks who contributed
fu
Hi Everyone,
I put together a wiki page outlining the process and guidelines we could
follow to better manage contributions to mxnet. This started out as a
proposal to better manage the PR backlog. However it felt necessary to
codify a set of guidelines or best practices new contributors could fol
gt; > for a release candidate to get new tutorials/howtos onto the website.
> that
> > being said we can restrict to build tutorials/howtos/other sections.,
> from
> > tip of the master and API documentation to come from a release tag.
> >
> > -Naveen
> >
>
We are currently building mxnet.io directly from HEAD of master.
With the next release we should make sure mxnet.io is built from a release
tag. This will ensure the docs website reflects the latest stable release.
Any one disagrees?
Madan.
15 matches
Mail list logo
