CodePipeline, then. You can point it to Jenkins instances.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:49 PM Mu Li <muli....@gmail.com> 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, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > 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 <tqc...@cs.washington.edu> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Tianqi > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:39 PM Mu Li <muli....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that the Apache CI is quite overloaded these days, and > MXNet's > > > CI > > > > pipeline is too complex to run there. In addition, we may need to add > > > more > > > > devices, e.g. macpro and rasbperry pi, into the server, and more > tasks > > > such > > > > as pip build. It means a lot of requests to the Infra team. > > > > > > > > We can reuse our previous Jenkins server at http://ci.mxnet.io/. But > > we > > > > probably need a dedicate developer to maintain it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM, sandeep krishnamurthy < > > > > sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 builds, difficult to load and view the blue ocean and > > > other > > > > > Jenkins build status page. > > > > > 2. We are generating too many request/interaction on Apache > Infra > > > > team. > > > > > 1. Addition/deletion of new slave: Caused from scaling > > activity, > > > > > recycling, troubleshooting or any actions leading to change > of > > > > slave > > > > > machines. > > > > > 2. Plugins / other Jenkins Master configurations. > > > > > 3. Experimentation on CI pipelines. > > > > > 3. Harder to debug and resolve issues - Since access to master > and > > > > slave > > > > > is not with the same community, it requires Infra and community > to > > > > dive > > > > > deep together on all action items. > > > > > > > > > > Possible Solutions: > > > > > > > > > > ============== > > > > > > > > > > 1. Can we set up a separate Jenkins CI build system for Apache > > MXNet > > > > > outside Apache Infra? > > > > > 2. Can we have a separate Jenkins Master in Apache Infra for > > MXNet? > > > > > 3. Review design of current setup, refine and fill the gaps. > > > > > > > > > > @ Mentors/Infra team/Community: > > > > > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > > > > > Please provide your suggestions on how we can proceed further and > > work > > > on > > > > > stabilizing the CI build systems for MXNet. > > > > > > > > > > Also, if the community decides on separate Jenkins CI build system, > > > what > > > > > important points should be taken care of apart from the below: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Community being able to access the build page for build > > statuses. > > > > > 2. Committers being able to login with apache credentials. > > > > > 3. Hook setup from apache/incubator-mxnet repo to Jenkins > master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Irrespective of the solution we come up, I think we should > initiate a > > > > > technical design discussion on how to setup the CI build system. > > > > Probably 1 > > > > > or 2 pager documents with the architecture and review with Infra > and > > > > > community members. > > > > > > > > > > ***There were few proposal and discussion on the slack channel, to > > > reach > > > > > wider community members, moving that discussion formally to this > > list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My Proposal: Option 1 - Set up separate Jenkins CI build system. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Sandeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
