Very curious to hear that. I contacted several customers, most of them are waiting for 1.2 to be ready on the internal system. Did they fork by their own? If they changed the codes, will them submit their changes?
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Marco de Abreu <[email protected] > wrote: > We received a few pull requests for the 1.2 branch which are not from key > contributors. I'm also aware of a few Amazon internal customers who are > currently actively working off the 1.2 branch to prepare for 1.2.1 release, > so I'd rather err on the side of caution here. > > -marco > > Mu Li <[email protected]> schrieb am Sa., 9. Juni 2018, 23:44: > > > The proposal is squash commits made from May 21 to June 7 into a single > > commit for the 1.2 branch. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commits/v1.2.0 t should not > > affect the master branch. But it may affect developers if they cloned and > > 1.2 some day between May 21 and June 7 and want to PR their changes > later. > > But it less likely happens. > > > > Best, > > Mu > > > > > On Jun 9, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Marco de Abreu < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Would there be any benefit besides cosmetics? I'd propose to just leave > > it > > > as-is. > > > > > > Tianqi Chen <[email protected]> schrieb am Sa., 9. Juni 2018, > > 22:28: > > > > > >> This would only happen if somebody pushed some changes on these new > > commits > > >> pushed 1.2.0 branch. > > >> > > >> That is if I checked out 1.2.0 before the change is pushed, and rebase > > >> against the code after squash, it will be fine. The problem will only > > >> happen if someone checked out 1.2.0 after these commits get in, push > > their > > >> own changes, then try to rebase > > >> > > >> Tianqi > > >> > > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > >> [email protected] > > >>> wrote: > > >> > > >>> It would be a history rewrite. Everybody would receive an error if > they > > >>> checked out the branch and try to merge or rebase. > > >>> > > >>> Naveen Swamy <[email protected]> schrieb am Sa., 9. Juni 2018, > 22:21: > > >>> > > >>>> how would it be devastating? it is just squashing a bunch of commits > > >>>> together into 1 commit. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I think we should never ever force push to a publish repository > since > > >>> we > > >>>>> don't know what depends on it. I'd say we take this as a lesson > > >> learned > > >>>> and > > >>>>> leave it as it is. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The impact could be way more devastating than the benefits > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -Marco > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Naveen Swamy <[email protected]> schrieb am Sa., 9. Juni 2018, > > >> 21:39: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi Mu, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> No, it isn't necessary to have those commits. I did not want to > > >>> rewrite > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> history, thats why I did not attempt. I can try to squash and > force > > >>>> push, > > >>>>>> I'll let you know if I am able to force-push. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks, Naveen > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Mu Li <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi Naveen, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification. Is there necessary to keep these > > >>>> commits > > >>>>>>> submitted by the maveen plugin in the repo? Otherwise, can we > > >>> squash > > >>>>>> these > > >>>>>>> commits and force push it to a single commit? It's good to have a > > >>>>> stable > > >>>>>>> release only patched with meaningful commits. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>> Mu > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Jun 7, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > >>>>>> [email protected]> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Ah yeah that's exactly what I mean :) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Naveen Swamy <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 7. Juni > > >> 2018, > > >>>>> 23:54: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> May be, but I have disabled it taking any action, so I don't > > >>> see a > > >>>>>> need > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> do it on a private fork. I am reviewing the local changes and > > >>>> make a > > >>>>>> PR > > >>>>>>>>> after that. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hello Naveen, > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> thank you for addressing this. Is it possible to let the > > >> plugin > > >>>>> point > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>> private fork so you can review it's actions manually before > > >>> they > > >>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>> written to the main repository? That way, we could just open > > >> a > > >>> PR > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>> double check everything is as expected. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for taking care of the Scala releases! > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>>>>>>> Marco > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Naveen Swamy <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 7. Juni > > >>> 2018, > > >>>>>> 23:27: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello all, > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I want to bring to your attention that there have been some > > >>>>>> accidental > > >>>>>>>>>>> commits to the 1.2.0 branch on my behalf. This was done by > > >> the > > >>>>> Maven > > >>>>>>>>>>> apache-release plugin while I was working on building a > > >>> package > > >>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>> publish > > >>>>>>>>>>> to Maven. > > >>>>>>>>>>> When you use apache-release profile in your profile by > > >> default > > >>>> it > > >>>>>>>>> updates > > >>>>>>>>>>> the package version number, create a tag on the remote repo > > >>> and > > >>>>>> commit > > >>>>>>>>>> all > > >>>>>>>>>>> the changes from local. This is how my WIP commits got into > > >>>> 1.2.0 > > >>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>> was > > >>>>>>>>>>> not protected. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have disabled this capability in my current PR > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11147/. This > > >>> is > > >>>>> also > > >>>>>>>>>>> necessary since we need to publish on multiple > > >>>>>>>>>> platforms(osx/linux-cpu/gpu) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Naveen > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
