In addition to your points, releases should be on apache.org and its mirror
network. Not on github.com.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:45 PM, pracheer gupta <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi dev@,
>
> As you are aware MXNet recently had its first release under the Apache
> banner.
>
>
> As a first-time release, there was a lot of learning for all of us
> involved. Keeping that in mind, I wanted to reach out to the community to
> understand what aspects of the release process should be improved for the
> future releases (or maybe even the things that we did well).
>
> (I will capture it in the wiki<https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/MXNET/Release+Process> as guidelines for posterity)
>
>
> Here are the few things that I thought could be improved:
>
>   1.  Voting for the release: Does a +1 voter need to test, at least, all
> the new major features before giving her vote? Does it make sense for every
> +1 voter to call out why she thinks so (i.e. what is it that she tested
> successfully that made her feel that RC is ready for prime time)? This may
> help the community feel more confident about the RC.
>   2.  Bigger/clearer heads up on the deadline to all the contributors
> pushing their code changes to make it into the RC. 2 weeks advance notice
> may be?
>
>   3.  Something that wasn't very obvious (please correct me if I'm wrong):
> Did we do an end-to-end testing (distributed training on a cluster and run
> inferences) on some big model to ensure our performance hasn't degraded
> since our previous release (or degraded due to some last minute change we
> made). Or are the tests that are running as part of Jenkins infrastructure
> good enough?
>
>
> What are the other things we should improve on?
>
>
>
> Note that, adding some knobs and refining the process shouldn’t come at
> cost of faster releases. This is just meant to provide some ideas that will
> help improve the quality of MXNet while making the release process cleaner
> and overall community effort more efficient.
>
>
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> -Pracheer
>

Reply via email to