Moving this to private, I don't want our contributors to get discouraged by our internal bickering.
Mu, we have to start somewhere..your comment "find enough reviewers to provide useful feedbacks for major changes." is pretty condescending and I take objection to it. By now Eric, you and Tianqi are considered super Hero of MXNet(no malafide intended) and if you want to become Super hero of AI, you have to grow the knowledge base of the community on the code base instead of thinking these guys will not provide any valid input and asking questions in moderation is not a bad place to start many don't participate in the PR process because you guys are super rude and condescending like this.. I have not seen any discussion on the dev list or a design about this feature addition? did I miss it? I like what Tianqi said about moving forward but we cannot just make this a norm.. Also I would like to request all committers to bring up controversial topics on the private list and not drive away contributors outside of dmlc and Amazon. On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:59 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > does anyone know how to unsubscribe from this list? > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:56 PM Haibin Lin <haibin.lin....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Why revert the PR when we know there's a fix? > > If we keep going backwards like this, no progress can be made. > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Mu Li <muli....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Agree that major changes need more extensive reviews. But we cannot > > ignore > > > that both reviews and CI cannot catch all bugs. Reverting each PR after > > > finding a bug should be the last ways, before it, we should try to fix > it > > > first. > > > > > > As for the breaking change, I see it differently. It breaks a not > > > recommended usage of the API from an unmaintained tutorial, I don't > think > > > adding more reviewers will help it. > > > > > > Besides, I'm less sure if we can find enough reviewers to provide > useful > > > feedbacks for major changes. > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > We revert a PR because it should not have been merged in the first > > place. > > > > So far, I have been ignoring the fact that our committers are > > constantly > > > > breaking our own rules (which we expect contributors to follow). But > > > since > > > > this caused an impact twice (1.2 breaking change about model > > > import/export > > > > as well as this regression), I'm now being more strict and enforcing > > > them. > > > > > > > > I could've also made a script that prevents any PR from being > > > self-merged, > > > > but I thought our committers are responsible enough to follow our own > > > rules > > > > without systems actually enforcing them. I won't waste my time > working > > on > > > > that script, but from now on I will revert every single PR (except > > > > emergency cases) that has been self-merged without approval. > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:15 PM Mu Li <muli....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why reverting instead of fixing the bugs? Static memory aims to > > reduce > > > > > memory allocation, it's a key feature to bridge the perf gap > between > > > > gluon > > > > > and symbol. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm reverting https://github.com/apache/ > incubator-mxnet/pull/10817 > > > as > > > > of > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11311 due to > > > > regressions > > > > > > described in > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11171 > > > > and > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10817. > > > > > > > > > > > > The pull request has been self-merged without proper review and > > > > > introduced > > > > > > regressions. Committers should act as role models in this project > > and > > > > > > adhere to software engineer best practices. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
