Hi Bhavin Good suggestions.
I wanted to respond to your point #5 The promotion of integration to master would be done automatically by jenkins once a commit passes the nightly tests. So it should not impose any additional burden on the developers, as there is no manual step involved / human gatekeeper. It would be equivalent to your suggestion with tags. You can do the same with branches, anyway a git branch is just a pointer to some commit, so I think we are talking about the same. Pedro. On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Bhavin Thaker <bhavintha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Few comments/suggestions: > > 1) Can we have this nice list of todo items on the Apache MXNet wiki page > to track them better? > > 2) Can we have a set of owners for each set of tests and source code > directory? One of the problems I have observed is that when there is a test > failure, it is difficult to find an owner who will take the responsibility > of fixing the test OR identifying the culprit code promptly -- this causes > the master to continue to fail for many days. > > 3) Specifically, we need an owner for the Windows setup -- nobody seems to > know much about it -- please feel free to correct me if required. > > 4) +1 to have a list of all feature requests on Jira or a similar commonly > and easily accessible system. > > 5) -1 to the branching model -- I was the gatekeeper for the branching > model at Informix for the database kernel code to be merged to master along > with my day-job of being a database kernel engineer for around 9 months and > hence have the opinion that a branching model just shifts the burden from > one place to another. We don't have a dedicated team to do the branching > model. If we really need a buildable master everyday, then we could just > tag every successful build as last_clean_build on master -- use this tag to > get a clean master at any time. How many Apache projects are doing > development on separate branches? > > 6) FYI: Rahul (rahul003@) has fixed various warnings with this PR: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/7109 and has a test added > that fails for any warning found. We can build on top of his work. > > 7) FYI: For the unit-tests problems, Meghna identified that some of the > unit-test run times have increased significantly in the recent builds. We > need volunteers to help diagnose the root-cause here: > > Unit Test Task > > Build #337 > > Build #500 > > Build #556 > > Python 2: GPU win > > 25 > > 38 > > 40 > > Python 3: GPU Win > > 15 > > 38 > > 46 > > Python2: CPU > > 25 > > 35 > > 80 > > Python3: CPU > > 14 > > 28 > > 72 > > R: CPU > > 20 > > 34 > > 24 > > R: GPU > > 5 > > 24 > > 24 > > > 8) Ensure that all PRs submitted have corresponding documentation on > http://mxnet.io for it. It may be fine to have documentation follow the > code changes as long as there is ownership that this task will be done in a > timely manner. For example, I have requested the Nvidia team to submit PRs > to update documentation on http://mxnet.io for the Volta changes to MXNet. > > > 9) Ensure that mega-PRs have some level of design or architecture > document(s) shared on the Apache MXNet wiki. The mega-PR must have both > unit-tests and nightly/integration tests submitted to demonstrate > high-quality level. > > > 10) Finally, how do we get ownership for code submitted to MXNet? When > something fails in a code segment that only a small set of folks know > about, what is the expected SLA for a response from them? When users deploy > MXNet in production environments, they will expect some form of SLA for > support and a patch release. > > > Regards, > Bhavin Thaker. > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 That would be great. >> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote: >> > How about we ask for a new mxnet repo to store all the config in? >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:30 Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Just to provide a high level overview of the ideas and proposals >> >> coming from different sources for the requirements for testing and >> >> validation of builds: >> >> >> >> * Have terraform files for the testing infrastructure. Infrastructure >> >> as code (IaC). Minus not emulated / nor cloud based, embedded >> >> hardware. ("single command" replication of the testing infrastructure, >> >> no manual steps). >> >> >> >> * CI software based on Jenkins, unless someone thinks there's a better >> >> alternative. >> >> >> >> * Use autoscaling groups and improve staggered build + test steps to >> >> achieve higher parallelism and shorter feedback times. >> >> >> >> * Switch to a branching model based on stable master + integration >> >> branch. PRs are merged into dev/integration which runs extended >> >> nightly tests, which are >> >> then merged into master, preferably in an automated way after >> >> successful extended testing. >> >> Master is always tested, and always buildable. Release branches or >> >> tags in master as usual for releases. >> >> >> >> * Build + test feedback time targeting less than 15 minutes. >> >> (Currently a build in a 16x core takes 7m). This involves lot of >> >> refactoring of tests, move expensive tests / big smoke tests to >> >> nightlies on the integration branch, also tests on IoT devices / power >> >> and performance regressions... >> >> >> >> * Add code coverage and other quality metrics. >> >> >> >> * Eliminate warnings and treat warnings as errors. We have spent time >> >> tracking down "undefined behaviour" bugs that could have been caught >> >> by compiler warnings. >> >> >> >> Is there something I'm missing or additional things that come to your >> >> mind that you would wish to add? >> >> >> >> Pedro. >> >> >>
