I was trying the nightly builds, but none of them is available: pip3 install https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-01/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200101-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl --user pip3 install https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-02/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200102-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl --user pip3 install https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl --user pip3 install https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-04/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200104-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl --user
ERROR: Could not install requirement mxnet-cu100==1.6.0b20200103 from https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl because of HTTP error 404 Client Error: Not Found for url: https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl for URL https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl Please let me know if I typed wrong URLs. 1. The discoverability of available nightly builds needs improvement. If someone can help write a script to list all links that exist, that would be very helpful. 2. If any nightly build is not built successfully, how do the community know the reason of the failure, and potentially offer helps? Currently I don't have much visibility of the nightly build status. Best, Haibin On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 5:47 PM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to clarify, the current CI is quite an overhead to maintain for > several reasons, this complexity is overkill for CD. Jenkins also has > constant plugin upgrades, security vulnerabilities, has to be restarted > from time to time as it stops working... and to make binary builds from an > environment which runs unsafe code, I don't think is good practice. So for > that, having a separate Jenkins, CodeBuild, Drone or using a separate > Jenkins node is the right solution. Agree with you that is just a > scheduler, but somebody is making efforts to keep it running. If you have > the appetite and resources to duplicate it for CD please go ahead. > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:25 PM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Regarding your point of finding somebody to maintain the solution: At > > Apache we usually retire things if there's no maintainer, since that > > indicates that the feature/system is not of enough interest to warrant > > maintenance - otherwise, someone would step up. > > > > While assistance in the form of a fix is always appreciated, the fix > still > > has to conform with the way this project and Apache operates. Next time > I'd > > recommend to contribute time on improving the existing community solution > > instead of developing an internal system. > > > > -Marco > > > > Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020, > > 00:21: > > > > > Sam, while I understand that this solution was developed out of > > necessity, > > > my question why a new system has been developed instead of fixing the > > > existing one or adapting the solution. CodeBuild is a scheduler in the > > same > > > fashion as Jenkins is. It runs code. So you can adapt it to Jenkins > > without > > > much hassle. > > > > > > I'm not volunteering for this - why should I? The role of a PMC member > is > > > to steer the direction of the project. Just because a manager points > > > towards a certain direction, if doesn't mean that they're going to do > it. > > > > > > Apparently there was enough time at some point to develop a new > solution > > > from scratch. It might have been a solution for your internal team and > > > that's fine, but upgrading it "temporarily" to be the advertised way on > > the > > > official website is something different. > > > > > > I won't argue about how the veto can be enforced. I think it's in the > > best > > > interest of the project if we try working on a solution instead of > > spending > > > time on trying to figure out the power of the PMC. > > > > > > Pedro, that's certainly a step towards the right direction. But > > committers > > > would also need access to the control plane of the system - to trigger, > > > stop and audit builds. We could go down that road, but i think the > fewer > > > systems, the better - also for the sake of maintainability. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 3. Jan. > > 2020, > > > 20:55: > > > > > >> I'm not involved in such efforts, but one possibility is to have the > > yaml > > >> files that describe the pipelines for CD in the Apache repositories, > > would > > >> that be acceptable from the Apache POV? In the end they should be very > > >> thin > > >> and calling the scripts that are part of the CD packages. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 6:56 AM Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Agree, but the question how a non Amazonian is able to maintain and > > >> access > > >> > the system is still open. As it stands right now, the community has > > >> taken a > > >> > step back and loses some control if we continue down that road. > > >> > > > >> > I personally am disapproving of that approach since committers are > no > > >> > longer in control of that process. So far it seems like my questions > > >> were > > >> > skipped and further actions have been taken. As openness and the > > >> community > > >> > having control are part of our graduation criteria, I'm putting in > my > > >> veto > > >> > with a grace period until 15th of January. Please bring the system > > into > > >> a > > >> > state that aligns with Apache values or revert the changes. > > >> > > > >> > -Marco > > >> > > > >> > Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 3. Jan. > > >> 2020, > > >> > 03:33: > > >> > > > >> > > CD should be separate from CI for security reasons in any case. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 10:04 AM Marco de Abreu < > > >> marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Could you elaborate how a non-Amazonian is able to access, > > maintain > > >> and > > >> > > > review the CodeBuild pipeline? How come we've diverted from the > > >> > community > > >> > > > agreed-on standard where the public Jenkins serves for the > purpose > > >> of > > >> > > > testing and releasing MXNet? I'd be curious about the issues > > you're > > >> > > > encountering with Jenkins CI that led to a non-standard > solution. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -Marco > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Skalicky, Sam <sska...@amazon.com.invalid> schrieb am Sa., 7. > > Dez. > > >> > 2019, > > >> > > > 18:39: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi MXNet Community, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We have been working on getting nightly builds fixed and made > > >> > available > > >> > > > > again. We’ve made another system using AWS CodeBuild & S3 to > > work > > >> > > around > > >> > > > > the problems with Jenkins CI, PyPI, etc. It is currently > > building > > >> all > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > flavors and publishing to an S3 bucket here: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://us-west-2.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/apache-mxnet/dist/?region=us-west-2 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > There are folders for each set of nightly builds, try out the > > >> wheels > > >> > > > > starting today 2019-12-07. Builds start at 1:30am PT (9:30am > > GMT) > > >> and > > >> > > > > arrive in the bucket 30min-2hours later. Inside each folder > are > > >> the > > >> > > > wheels > > >> > > > > for each flavor of MXNet. Currently we’re only building for > > linux, > > >> > > builds > > >> > > > > for windows/Mac will come later. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > If you want to download the wheels easily you can use a URL in > > the > > >> > form > > >> > > > of: > > >> > > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/ > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > <YYYY-MM-DD>/dist/<mxnet_build>-1.6.0b<YYYYMMDD>-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Heres a set of links for today’s builds > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > (Plain mxnet, no mkl no cuda) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > (mxnet-mkl > > >> > > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-mkl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > ) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > (mxnet-cuXXX > > >> > > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXX > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > ) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > (mxnet-cuXXXmkl > > >> > > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXXmkl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > ) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > You can easily install these pip wheels in your system either > by > > >> > > > > downloading them to your machine first and then installing by > > >> doing: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > pip install /path/to/downloaded/wheel.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Or you can install directly by just giving the link to pip > like > > >> this: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > pip install > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Credit goes to everyone involved (in no particular order) > > >> > > > > Rakesh Vasudevan > > >> > > > > Zach Kimberg > > >> > > > > Manu Seth > > >> > > > > Sheng Zha > > >> > > > > Jun Wu > > >> > > > > Pedro Larroy > > >> > > > > Chaitanya Bapat > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks! > > >> > > > > Sam > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Dec 5, 2019, at 1:16 AM, Lausen, Leonard > > >> > <lau...@amazon.com.INVALID > > >> > > > > <mailto:lau...@amazon.com.INVALID>> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We don't loose pip by hosting on S3. We just don't host > nightly > > >> > > releases > > >> > > > > on Pypi > > >> > > > > servers and mirror them to several hundred mirrors immediately > > >> after > > >> > > each > > >> > > > > build > > >> > > > > is published which is very expensive for the Pypi project.. > > People > > >> > can > > >> > > > > still > > >> > > > > install the nightly builds with pip by specifying the -f > option. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Uploading weekly releases to Pypi will reduce the cost for > Pypi > > by > > >> > ~75% > > >> > > > > [1]. It > > >> > > > > may be acceptable to Pypi, but does it make sense for us? I'm > > not > > >> > > > convinced > > >> > > > > weekly release on Pypi is a good idea. Consider one release is > > >> buggy, > > >> > > > > users will > > >> > > > > need to wait for 7 days for a fix. It doesn't provide good > user > > >> > > > experience. > > >> > > > > If someone has a stronger conviction about the value of weekly > > >> > releases > > >> > > > on > > >> > > > > Pypi, > > >> > > > > that person shall please go ahead and propose it in a separate > > >> > > discussion > > >> > > > > thread. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Currently we don't have generally working nightly builds to > Pypi > > >> and > > >> > > as a > > >> > > > > matter > > >> > > > > of fact we know that we can't have them due to Pypi's policy > and > > >> our > > >> > > > > apparent > > >> > > > > need for large binaries. Given this fact and that no objection > > was > > >> > > raised > > >> > > > > by > > >> > > > > 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC, I conclude we have lazy consensus on > > >> > stopping > > >> > > > > upload > > >> > > > > attempts of nightly builds to Pypi. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > With consensus established, we can change the CI job to stop > > >> trying > > >> > to > > >> > > > > upload > > >> > > > > the nightly builds and then request Pypi to increase the > limit. > > >> Then > > >> > we > > >> > > > > have one > > >> > > > > less blocker for the 1.6 release. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Best regards > > >> > > > > Leonard > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]: Lower cost due to less releases, but higher cost due to > > >> 500MB -> > > >> > > > 800MB > > >> > > > > limit increase. Assuming that the limit increase translates > into > > >> > > actually > > >> > > > > larger > > >> > > > > binaries. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 22:20 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote: > > >> > > > > Are weekly releases an option? It was brought up as concern > that > > >> we > > >> > > might > > >> > > > > lose pip as a pretty common distribution channel where people > > >> consume > > >> > > > > nightly builds. I don't feel like that concern has been > properly > > >> > > > addressed > > >> > > > > so far. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -Marco > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.invalid<mailto: > > >> > > > > lau...@amazon.com.invalid>> schrieb am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019, > > >> > > > > 04:09: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > As a simple POC to test distribution, you can try installing > > MXNet > > >> > > based > > >> > > > on > > >> > > > > these 3 URLs: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > pip install --no-cache-dir > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://mxnet-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > pip install --no-cache-dir > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://mxnet-dev.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > pip install --no-cache-dir > > https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/ > > >> > > > > mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > < > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > where --no-cache-dir prevents caching the downloaded file, for > > the > > >> > > > purpose > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > testing. (cu101 chosen based on large size) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The first URL uses standard S3 bucket in US. The second uses > S3 > > >> > > > Accelerate > > >> > > > > based > > >> > > > > on CloudFront CDN. And the third uses CloudFront CDN. I'm > adding > > >> the > > >> > > > third > > >> > > > > URL, > > >> > > > > as S3 Accelerate may or may not use all new CloudFront > endpoints > > >> yet. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Regarding voting: Uploading to Pypi is currently impossible, > > which > > >> > is a > > >> > > > > reality > > >> > > > > (so there is no option to continue as we do currently). Pypi > > folks > > >> > > > > indicated > > >> > > > > they will unblock our uploads to Pypi once we stop uploading > > >> nightly > > >> > > > > releases > > >> > > > > and taking up 20% of their ressources [1]. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > If there are any shortcomings or problems identified with > > >> uploading > > >> > to > > >> > > > S3, > > >> > > > > we > > >> > > > > can work to address them. But for now, status quo is broken > and > > >> this > > >> > > > seems > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > only solution addressing Pypi's problem. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I don't mind if you state that you object to lazy consensus > and > > >> > start a > > >> > > > > vote. If > > >> > > > > your "maybe [...] start a proper vote" was supposed to be an > > >> > objection > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > lazy > > >> > > > > consensus, please state so clearly (I'm not sure if "maybe" > > >> qualifies > > >> > > as > > >> > > > > objection). Though I think it only makes sense with at least 2 > > >> > options > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > vote > > >> > > > > on. Status quo is not a meaningful option, as it is already > > >> broken. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Best regards > > >> > > > > Leonard > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]: > > >> > > > > > >> https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50#issuecomment-560479706 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 19:28 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote: > > >> > > > > Excellent! Could we maybe come up with a POC and a quick > writeup > > >> and > > >> > > then > > >> > > > > start a proper vote after everyone verified that it covers > their > > >> > > > > use-cases? > > >> > > > > -Marco > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Sheng Zha <zhash...@apache.org> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, > > >> 19:24: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, there is. We can also make it easier to access by using a > > >> > > > > geo-location based DNS server so that China users are directed > > to > > >> > that > > >> > > > > local mirror. The rest of the world is already covered by the > > >> global > > >> > > > > cloudfront. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -sz > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On 2019/12/03 18:22:22, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > Isn't there an s3 endpoint in Beijing? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > It seems like this topic still warrants some discussion and > thus > > >> I'd > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > prefer > > >> > > > > if we don't move forward with lazy consensus. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -Marco > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Tao Lv <mutou...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, > > 14:31: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > * For pypi, we can use mirrors. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:28 PM Tao Lv <mutou...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > As we have many users in China, I'm considering the > > >> > > > > accessibility of > > >> > > > > S3. > > >> > > > > For pip, we can mirrors. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:24 PM Lausen, Leonard > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > <lau...@amazon.com.invalid > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I would like to remind everyone that lazy consensus is assumed > > >> > > > > if no > > >> > > > > objections > > >> > > > > are raised before 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC. There has been some > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > discussion > > >> > > > > about > > >> > > > > the proposal, but to my understanding no objections were > > >> > > > > raised. > > >> > > > > If the proposal is accepted, MXNet releases would be installed > > >> > > > > via > > >> > > > > pip install mxnet > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > And release candidates via > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > pip install --pre mxnet > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > (or with the respective cuda version specifier appended etc.) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > To obtain releases built automatically from the master branch, > > >> > > > > users > > >> > > > > would need > > >> > > > > to specify something like "-f > > >> > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-X/nightly.html"; option to > > >> > > > > pip. > > >> > > > > Best regards > > >> > > > > Leonard > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 05:42 +0000, Lausen, Leonard wrote: > > >> > > > > Hi MXNet Community, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > since more than 2 months our binary Python nightly releases > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > published > > >> > > > > on Pypi > > >> > > > > are broken. The problem is that our binaries exceed Pypi's > > >> > > > > size > > >> > > > > limit. > > >> > > > > Decreasing the binary size by adding compression breaks > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > third-party > > >> > > > > libraries > > >> > > > > loading libmxnet.so > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16193 > > >> > > > > Sheng requested Pypi to increase their size limit: > > >> > > > > https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Currently "the biggest cost for PyPI from [the many MXNet > > >> > > > > binaries > > >> > > > > with > > >> > > > > nightly > > >> > > > > release to Pypi] is the bandwidth consumed when several > > >> > > > > hundred > > >> > > > > mirrors > > >> > > > > attempt > > >> > > > > to mirror each release immediately after it's published". So > > >> > > > > Pypi > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > not > > >> > > > > inclined to allow us to upload even larger binaries on a > > >> > > > > nightly > > >> > > > > schedule. > > >> > > > > Their compromise is to allow it on a weekly cadence. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > However, I would like the community to revisit the necessity > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > releasing pre- > > >> > > > > release binaries to Pypi on a nightly (or weekly) cadence. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Instead, we > > >> > > > > can > > >> > > > > release nightly binaries ONLY to a public S3 bucket and > > >> > > > > instruct > > >> > > > > users > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > install from there. On our side, we only need to prepare a > > >> > > > > html > > >> > > > > document that > > >> > > > > contains links to all released nightly binaries. > > >> > > > > Finally users will install the nightly releases via > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 -f > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/ > > >> > > > > nightly.html > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Instead of > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Of course proper releases and release candidates should > > >> > > > > still be > > >> > > > > made > > >> > > > > available > > >> > > > > via Pypi. Thus releases would be installed via > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > pip install mxnet-cu101 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > And release candidates via > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This will substantially reduce the costs of the Pypi project > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > fact > > >> > > > > matches > > >> > > > > the installation experience provided by PyTorch. I don't > > >> > > > > think the > > >> > > > > benefit of > > >> > > > > not including "-f > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/nightly.html"; > > >> > > > > matches the costs we currently externalize to the Pypi team. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This suggestion seems uncontroversial to me. Thus I would > > >> > > > > like to > > >> > > > > start > > >> > > > > lazy > > >> > > > > consensus. If there are no objections, I will assume lazy > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > consensus on > > >> > > > > stopping > > >> > > > > nightly releases to Pypi in 72hrs. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Best regards > > >> > > > > Leonard > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
