areusch commented on PR #11809: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/11809#issuecomment-1169368758
i think while i'm sympathetic to reducing the overall image disk size, in practice: - DockerHub stores these for us and we don't have a concern there - we have the problem of docker image bloat hogging disk on our CI nodes anyway due to image revisions, and have already solved that. so i don't think we need to make that a priority in this decision. i think then that it comes down to what's operationally easier, and i think that's the POV @Mousius and @manupa-arm were advocating. i tend to agree here--another way that we could get into trouble with consolidating `ci_cpu` and `ci_qemu` is two different `docker/install` scripts could add conflicting packages. we can mitigate that by keeping microTVM separated, and I'd vote for continuing that with renaming `ci_qemu` to `ci_micro`. cc @driazati @konturn in case they have other thoughts from a CI perspective. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
