-1000 on that. :) On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:33 AM Naveen Swamy <[email protected]> wrote:
> PR->Sanity test/Linux build/test->reviewer/committer approves the > change->Comment "Build Now" (Or trigger on at least one approval from a > committer other than author)->*Full build-*>*passes build*->Enable Merge > > Let us take this particular topic to a separate thread or discuss offline > if further clarification is needed. > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Chris Olivier <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I understand the proposal. How to trigger a build in that case? > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:54 AM Madan Jampani <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Chris, > > > I don't think Naveen is suggesting that a merge happen without full > > > verification i.e. all tests across all platforms pass. > > > If a PR has some back and forth and results in multiple revisions > (which > > is > > > arguably more common than a random unit test failing), we simply delay > > full > > > verification until the owner/reviewer have settled on a mutually > > acceptable > > > state. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Chris Olivier <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > -1 for running only partial tests. Most failing unit tests that get > > > > through fail only for certain platforms/configurations. I personally > > > > prefer to be assured the build and test is good before merge. Most > PR > > > > merges aren't in a huge hurry. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Naveen Swamy <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 to make it protected. Here is what I am thinking for PR builds > > > > > on a PR run Sanity Tests + build/test one platform->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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Madan Jampani < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > At a minimum I'd like to see the following two happen: > > > > > > - Option to merge is disabled until all required checks pass. > > > > > > - Code is reviewed and given +1 by at least one other committer > (no > > > > self > > > > > > review). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Gautam <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here <https://help.github.com/articles/about-protected- > > branches/ > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > document on semantics of protected branch. > > > > > > > In short when a branch is protected following applies to that > > > branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Can't be force pushed > > > > > > > - Can't be deleted > > > > > > > - Can't have changes merged into it until required status > > checks > > > > > > > <https://help.github.com/articles/about-required- > > status-checks> > > > > > pass > > > > > > > - Can't have changes merged into it until required reviews > are > > > > > > approved > > > > > > > <https://help.github.com/articles/approving-a-pull- > > > > > > > request-with-required-reviews> > > > > > > > - Can't be edited or have files uploaded to it from the web > > > > > > > - Can't have changes merged into it until changes to files > > that > > > > > > > have a designated > > > > > > > code owner <https://help.github.com/ > > articles/about-codeowners/> > > > > > have > > > > > > > been approved by that owner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure many of us might not want to have all these but we > can > > > > > debate > > > > > > on > > > > > > > it. My main motive was to "*Can't have changes merged into it > > until > > > > > > > required status checks pass*" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Gautam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Chris Olivier < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does that mean? "Protected"? Protected from what? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:08 PM Gautam < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > Gautam Kumar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
