Hi Chris, I mean make "master branch protected" of MXNet.
-Gautam On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Chris Olivier <[email protected]> wrote: > What does this mean? "Mx-net branch protected"? > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM Tsuyoshi OZAWA <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1, > > > > While I'm checking the recent build failures, and I think the decision > > of making the mx-net branch protected is necessary for stable > > building. > > Thanks Kumar for resuming important discussion. > > > > Best regards > > - Tsuyoshi > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Kumar, Gautam <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Reviving the discussion. > > > > > > At this point of time we have couple of stable builds > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/view/Incubator%20Projects/job/ > incubator-mxnet/job/master/448/ > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/view/Incubator%20Projects/job/ > incubator-mxnet/job/master/449/ > > > > > > Should we have a quick discussion or polling on making the mx-net > branch > > protected? If you still think we shouldn’t make it protected please > provide > > a reason to support your claim. > > > > > > Few of us have concern over Jenkin’s stability. If I look two weeks > > back, after upgrading Linux slave to g2.8x and new windows AMI, we have > 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 forward we are also planning that if we add any new slave we will > > not enable the main load immediately, but rather will do ‘test build’ to > > make sure that new slaves are not causing any infrastructure issue and > > capable to perform as good as existing slaves. > > > > > > -Gautam > > > > > > On 8/31/17, 5:27 PM, "Lupesko, Hagay" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > @madan looking into some failures – you’re right… there’s multiple > > issues going on, some of them intermittent, and we want to be able to > merge > > fixes in. > > > Agreed that we can wait with setting up protected mode until build > > stabilizes. > > > > > > On 8/31/17, 11:41, "Madan Jampani" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > @hagay: we agree on the end state. I'm not too particular about > > how we get > > > there. If you think enabling it now and fixes regression later > > is doable, > > > I'm fine with. I see a bit of a chicken and egg problem. We > need > > to get > > > some fixes in even when the status checks are failing. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Lupesko, Hagay < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > @madan – re: getting to a stable CI first: > > > > I’m concerned that by not enabling protected branch mode > ASAP, > > we’re just > > > > taking in more regressions, which makes a stable build a > > moving target for > > > > us… > > > > > > > > On 8/31/17, 10:49, "Zha, Sheng" <[email protected]> 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" < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > +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 < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Build stability is a major issue, builds have been > > failing left > > > > and right > > > > > over the last week. Some of it is due to Jenkins > > slave issues, > > > > but some are > > > > > real regressions. > > > > > We need to be more strict in the code we're > > committing. > > > > > > > > > > I propose we configure our master to be a protected > > branch ( > > > > > > > https://help.github.com/articles/about-protected-branches/). > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > On 2017-08-28 22:41, sandeep krishnamurthy < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello Committers and Contributors,> > > > > > > > > > > > > Due to unstable build pipelines, from past 1 > week, > > PRs are > > > > being merged> > > > > > > after CR ignoring PR build status. Build pipeline > > is much more > > > > stable > > > > > than> > > > > > > last week and most of the build failures you see > > from now on, > > > > are likely > > > > > to> > > > > > > be a valid failure and hence, it is recommended > to > > wait for PR > > > > builds, > > > > > see> > > > > > > the root cause of any build failures before > > proceeding with > > > > merges.> > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point of time, there are 2 intermittent > > issue yet to > > > > be fixed -> > > > > > > * Network error leading to GitHub requests > > throwing 404> > > > > > > * A conflict in artifacts generated between > > branches/PR - > > > > Cause unknown > > > > > yet.> > > > > > > These issues will be fixed soon.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > - Tsuyoshi > > > -- Best Regards, Gautam Kumar
