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

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

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Good work Meghna and thanks to community members for participating in the discussion and providing valuable inputs. Yes please share the document again and ask for vote and more broader inputs. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Nov 8,

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

+1 On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM Meghna Baijal wrote: > Thanks for the active discussion on the document for the new CI for MXNet. > Now that many of you have reviewed it, do you think I should start a vote > on which framework the community wants to move forward

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Thanks for the active discussion on the document for the new CI for MXNet. Now that many of you have reviewed it, do you think I should start a vote on which framework the community wants to move forward with ? Thanks, Meghna On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Chris Olivier

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

After a decision is reached, i am willing to add tasks to Apache MXNet JIRA On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Pedro Larroy wrote: > Thanks for setting up the document guys, looks like a solid basis to > start to work on! > > Marco, Kellen and I have already added

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Kellen, Thank you for your comments in the doc. Sure Steffen, I will continue to merge everyone’s comments into the doc and work with Pedro to finalize it. And then we can vote on the options. Thanks, Meghna Baijal On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Steffen Rochel wrote:

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Sandeep and Meghna have been working in background collecting input and preparing a doc. I suggest to drive discussion forward and would like to ask everybody to contribute to https://docs.google.com/document/d/17PEasQ2VWrXi2Cf7IGZSWGZMawxDkdlavUDASzUmLjk/edit?usp=sharing Lets converge on

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Some inline thoughts. On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bhavin Thaker wrote: > Few comments/suggestions: > > 1) Can we have this nice list of todo items on the Apache MXNet wiki page > to track them better? > > 2) Can we have a set of owners for each set of tests and

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

To point 7) I did a little bit of measure / profiling of our test runs a week or two ago and came to the same conclusion. I assumed the slow downs were mostly due to new tests which had recently been added. There were quite a few gluon tests for example added, and I think they're fairly resource

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Hi Bhavin Good suggestions. I wanted to respond to your point #5 The promotion of integration to master would be done automatically by jenkins once a commit passes the nightly tests. So it should not impose any additional burden on the developers, as there is no manual step involved / human

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Few comments/suggestions: 1) Can we have this nice list of todo items on the Apache MXNet wiki page to track them better? 2) Can we have a set of owners for each set of tests and source code directory? One of the problems I have observed is that when there is a test failure, it is difficult to

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

+1 That would be great. On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Hen wrote: > How about we ask for a new mxnet repo to store all the config in? > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:30 Pedro Larroy > wrote: > >> Just to provide a high level overview of the

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

How about we ask for a new mxnet repo to store all the config in? On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:30 Pedro Larroy wrote: > Just to provide a high level overview of the ideas and proposals > coming from different sources for the requirements for testing and > validation

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

+1 On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Chris Olivier wrote: > IMHO, it would be nice to have Apache JIRA for mxnet where these sort of > feature requests could be entered and publicly tracked and possibly taken > up by whoever has cycles with the JIRA helping to avoid

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

+1 I support Option 1 - Set up separate Jenkins CI build system. While the Apache service is appropriate for some projects, our experience over the last 6 months has not been meeting the needs of the MXNet (incubating) project. AWS has been and will continue provide resources for such project.

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

CodePipeline, then. You can point it to Jenkins instances. On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:49 PM Mu Li wrote: > AWS CodeBuild is not an option. It doesn't support GPU instances, mac os x, > and windows. Not even mention the edge devices. > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:07 PM,

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

AWS CodeBuild is not an option. It doesn't support GPU instances, mac os x, and windows. Not even mention the edge devices. On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Why don;t we look into fully managed AWS CodeBuild? It maintains > everything. It's also

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Chris: If the community decides to go with separate setup, then there will be a tech design discussion and CodeCommit / Jenkins / Travis such proposals will be covered and discussed. Thanks, Sandeep On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Seb Kiureghian wrote: > But the feather

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Thanks. Is there any way to work the feather into it? i.e. https://goo.gl/images/BU4dnG On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Seb Kiureghian wrote: > https://imgur.com/a/aADkA > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Why don;t

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

https://imgur.com/a/aADkA On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Why don;t we look into fully managed AWS CodeBuild? It maintains > everything. It's also compatible with Jenkins. > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Tianqi Chen

Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Why don;t we look into fully managed AWS CodeBuild? It maintains everything. It's also compatible with Jenkins. On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Tianqi Chen wrote: > +1 > > Tianqi > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:39 PM Mu Li wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > >

Fwd: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system

Hello all, I am hereby opening up a discussion thread on how we can stabilize Apache MXNet CI build system. Problems: Recently, we have seen following issues with Apache MXNet CI build systems: 1. Apache Jenkins master is overloaded and we see issues like - unable to trigger