Agree with Marco, there's a lot of stuff unrelated to MXNet. And right now we have good separation of concerns via the dockerized builds and ci/build.py infrastructure. I'm also in favor of a separate repo.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:08 PM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > Very good questions! My proposal would be that projects stored in that > separate repository would be entirely independent of the mxnet code. If > there is something that would need an update on both repositories, it's a > strong indicator that it should be put into the mxnet repository. There is > no coupling between the two repositories. > > From my perspective, we would not do any releases in that repository. > Contributions would happen in the same way as it happens right now: People > make pull requests and they can then be merged by committers. > > I personally think that storing things like these under the mxnet > repository might make it unnecessarily big and also create a conflict of > concerns. Code in the mxnet repository repository should be in direct > relation to the source of mxnet. > Another problem there would be our ci process. We would have to run the > entire CI pipeline although a patch might only touch the tools. This is not > necessary. > > Avoiding the coupling allows us to ensure that solutions are entirely > standalone and that they build on top of the user APIs. If we tightl > integrate it, we might run into cases where people make changes in the > mxnet code out of convenience on a fly-by. > > One example for a project would be the email not from Cathy. Her project is > entirely independent from the mxnet source and it should be made clear that > this is actually the case. > > Best regards, > Marco > > sandeep krishnamurthy <sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 2. > Aug. > 2018, 17:50: > > > apache/incubator-mxnet-tools is a good idea. > > I have few queries on - how do we manage separate repository, releases, > > changes by contributors may have to go to 2 repositories (when CI updates > > are required), is it going to be inside 3rd party module, versions of > > dependencies in tools should match with other resources in repo ex: > > setup.py etc. > > > > Why not under mxnet repo a CI / tools / infra folder and all this tools > go > > under it? > > > > Best, > > Sandeep > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 4:12 AM Pedro Larroy < > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I like tools more. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:05 AM Marco de Abreu > > > <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > definitely a good point, Isabel. During our office hour we thought > > about > > > > creating a repository under the Apache account with a name like > > > > incubator-mxnet-tools or incubator-mxnet-infrastructure. Does anybody > > > have > > > > other ideas for naming or maybe a better solution? > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:35 AM Isabel Drost-Fromm < > isa...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 1. August 2018 09:36:24 MESZ schrieb Yuelin Zhang < > > > > > zhangyuelinch...@gmail.com>: > > > > > >My concern is where should my code be finally merged. This bot is > > not > > > a > > > > > >part of MXNet framework but it serves MXNet community. For now, a > > good > > > > > >option is to have a separate repo for infrastructure. > > > > > > > > > > As this would be something that serves the mxnet project, my advise > > > would > > > > > be to make sure it ends up in a location that is controlled by the > > > Apache > > > > > mxnet PMC, in a location that is mirrored back to ASF resources. > > > > > > > > > > Isabel > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail > gesendet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy > > >
