Re: [NOTIFICATION] CI BACK ONLINE

Thank you for taking care of it Zi. Best, Sandeep On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, 6:52 pm Chaitanya Bapat, wrote: > Thanks Zi! > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Patrick Mu wrote: > > > Dear Community, > > > > We have restarted the CI master, with a more powerful instance with > larger > > network and IO

Re: [NOTIFICATION] CI BACK ONLINE

Thanks Zi! On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Patrick Mu wrote: > Dear Community, > > We have restarted the CI master, with a more powerful instance with larger > network and IO bandwidth. > > Now CI is fully back online, and you can retrigger any pending PRs now. > > Thanks, > Ziyi > --

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Hi, that's correct. But as stated previously, it's not an option to remove the hook. For now, I'd like to see how the system behaves while it's optional. Later on, we can talk about revisiting this decision. But to me it's not an option to deploy an entirely new system and approach without having

[NOTIFICATION] CI BACK ONLINE

Dear Community, We have restarted the CI master, with a more powerful instance with larger network and IO bandwidth. Now CI is fully back online, and you can retrigger any pending PRs now. Thanks, Ziyi

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Hey Marco, I thought currently every commit on PR and master triggers CI because a. github webhook points to Jenkins Server b. GH Webhook events trigger builds on Jenkins for all commits to any branch in apache/incubator-mxnet may it be master/PR/non-PR Reason: Because all the 3 types of branches

Re: [NOTIFICATION] CI Restart

I noticed at point the iops limit was getting hit. Upgrading the storage specs could be a great idea too. On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 11:59 Patrick Mu wrote: > Dear Community, > > Our developers have identified frequently occurrence of "Cannot contact > " issue > in our CI system. Sheng and Leonard

[NOTIFICATION] CI Restart

Dear Community, Our developers have identified frequently occurrence of "Cannot contact " issue in our CI system. Sheng and Leonard have helped to investigate this and have found the CI master's network bandwidth reaching limit is probably the culprit of the issue. To remove the burden of

Re: Requesting slack access

Hey Haohao, Welcome to the MXNet Community! Have sent you a request on the email id (wei...@sjtu.edu.cn) Thanks Chai On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 11:06, Haohao wrote: > Hello, I am writing to request the slack access of mxnet slack channel. > > Thank you. > -- *Chaitanya Prakash Bapat* *+1 (973)

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Custom subgraph property enhancements (#17236)

Current implementation (as of 3/18/2020) only supports combining ops into subgraphs generically. does not allow for fine grained control to say which ops should go into which subgraphs. Need to modify `supportedOps` API to change the `ids` vector from bool (supported or not) to integer (to say

Requesting slack access

Hello, I am writing to request the slack access of mxnet slack channel. Thank you.

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Thanks Chai, sounds good to me. Could you elaborate a bit on the point about triggering a CI run after the PR has been merged? We already to that automatically for the master, so what's the benefit to do it twice? -Marco Chaitanya Bapat schrieb am Mi., 18. März 2020, 09:30: > Update: > > > we

Re: MXNet Bot Demo

Update: > we can ensure that all CI runs ran on the commit that will be merged @Sam Skalicky Branch Protection is added to public MXNet repo. It ensures that for every PR to be merged, the CI passes. All the jobs selected "required" jobs will have to be green for the PR to be merged. Ofcourse,