[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 317

[Apache Jenkins Server]

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/317/

Re: ICLAs vs Contributors

[Henri Yandell]

Hi Przemyslaw,

We need each of you to sign an ICLA (
https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf ). That will cover your
contributions, including future contributions.

If you'd like to only sign something for only past contributions (ie: not
looking to make future contributions), then having you sign an SGA would be
an alternative to an ICLA (
https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt ).

Whether or not you should sign a CCLA is up to NVIDIA. Apache does not
require that corporations sign the CCLA, but some corporations choose to
sign a CCLA (for example if they feel that their employees are unable to
sign an ICLA without the corporation also signing something).

You can keep contributing (sending pull requests) before signing. Signing
this helps to strengthen MXNet's provenance (aka proof that the code is
legally authentic). There's already proof that the code is legally
authentic (some examples: you opening pull requests, the Apache license
requiring you to identify if the contribution is not under Apache license,
GitHub terms of service), this strengthens it :)

Many thanks for doing this,

Hen



On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Chris Olivier 
wrote:

> I think individual (personal email addresses), which is how everyone else
> is doing it, as far as I know
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:20 AM, ptre...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Me (ptrendx on GitHub), Dick (DickJC123) and Marek (mkolod) are NVIDIA
> > employees working on MXNet. Should we sign individual CLAs or should
> NVIDIA
> > sign corporate CLA with ASF? If so, could you point us to the document
> that
> > needs to be signed? Can we contribute in the meantime?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Przemyslaw Tredak
> >
> > On 2017-09-01 12:28, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> > > I've listed the top 100 contributors (as of the other day) on GitHub
> > here:
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ICLA+Progress
> > >
> > > With a check if they have signed an ICLA.
> > >
> > > John/Justin - can you confirm that we don't have to get an ICLA signed
> > from
> > > someone whose significant contributions have only been since MXNet came
> > to
> > > Apache? (Assuming it's not such a large piece of work that would flag
> for
> > > software-grant/ICLA - a new component etc).
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > I'd like us (MXNet) to work our way down the list getting (up to
> > > yanqingmen) ICLAs signed. After that we will review the nature of the
> > next
> > > batch of contributors commits and determine how much more ICLA signing
> we
> > > need.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Henri Yandell 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > (cc to John and Justin as they'd asked about this)
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the current MXNet GitHub contributors list (411
> > contributors):
> > > >
> > > > We have 36 signed CLAs at this point.
> > > >
> > > > Of the top 36 contributors, the following 15 top contributors aren't
> > > > covered by a CLA:
> > > >
> > > > 8:sneakerkg
> > > > 9:kevinthesun  (post Incubation)
> > > > 17:hjk41
> > > > 18:mavenlin
> > > > 19:tornadomeet
> > > > 20:winstywang
> > > > 21:jermainewang
> > > > 22:qiaohaijun
> > > > 23:vchuravy
> > > > 25:Roshrini  (post Incubation)
> > > > 26:howard0su
> > > > 28:sbodenstein
> > > > 31:ptrendx  (post Incubation)
> > > > 35:zackchase   (post Incubation)
> > > > 36:yanqingmen
> > > >
> > > > Note that some of these are post entering the Incubator.
> > > >
> > > > Some of the 411 contributors we should ask for CLA/SGs from. Those
> > above
> > > > are most likely the first to get agreements signed from, and we need
> to
> > > > determine how far down the list to go.
> > > >
> > > > The git logs are trickier to use as they don't use the github login;
> so
> > > > doing an analysis of the diffs themselves is trickier.
> > > >
> > > > Hen
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 316

[Apache Jenkins Server]

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/316/

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 315

[Apache Jenkins Server]

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/315/

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 311

[Apache Jenkins Server]

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/311/

Re: ICLAs vs Contributors

[Chris Olivier]

I think individual (personal email addresses), which is how everyone else
is doing it, as far as I know

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:20 AM, ptre...@gmail.com  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Me (ptrendx on GitHub), Dick (DickJC123) and Marek (mkolod) are NVIDIA
> employees working on MXNet. Should we sign individual CLAs or should NVIDIA
> sign corporate CLA with ASF? If so, could you point us to the document that
> needs to be signed? Can we contribute in the meantime?
>
> Thank you
> Przemyslaw Tredak
>
> On 2017-09-01 12:28, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> > I've listed the top 100 contributors (as of the other day) on GitHub
> here:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ICLA+Progress
> >
> > With a check if they have signed an ICLA.
> >
> > John/Justin - can you confirm that we don't have to get an ICLA signed
> from
> > someone whose significant contributions have only been since MXNet came
> to
> > Apache? (Assuming it's not such a large piece of work that would flag for
> > software-grant/ICLA - a new component etc).
> >
> > --
> >
> > I'd like us (MXNet) to work our way down the list getting (up to
> > yanqingmen) ICLAs signed. After that we will review the nature of the
> next
> > batch of contributors commits and determine how much more ICLA signing we
> > need.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Henri Yandell 
> wrote:
> >
> > > (cc to John and Justin as they'd asked about this)
> > >
> > > Looking at the current MXNet GitHub contributors list (411
> contributors):
> > >
> > > We have 36 signed CLAs at this point.
> > >
> > > Of the top 36 contributors, the following 15 top contributors aren't
> > > covered by a CLA:
> > >
> > > 8:sneakerkg
> > > 9:kevinthesun  (post Incubation)
> > > 17:hjk41
> > > 18:mavenlin
> > > 19:tornadomeet
> > > 20:winstywang
> > > 21:jermainewang
> > > 22:qiaohaijun
> > > 23:vchuravy
> > > 25:Roshrini  (post Incubation)
> > > 26:howard0su
> > > 28:sbodenstein
> > > 31:ptrendx  (post Incubation)
> > > 35:zackchase   (post Incubation)
> > > 36:yanqingmen
> > >
> > > Note that some of these are post entering the Incubator.
> > >
> > > Some of the 411 contributors we should ask for CLA/SGs from. Those
> above
> > > are most likely the first to get agreements signed from, and we need to
> > > determine how far down the list to go.
> > >
> > > The git logs are trickier to use as they don't use the github login; so
> > > doing an analysis of the diffs themselves is trickier.
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> >
>

Re: ICLAs vs Contributors

[ptre...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Me (ptrendx on GitHub), Dick (DickJC123) and Marek (mkolod) are NVIDIA 
employees working on MXNet. Should we sign individual CLAs or should NVIDIA 
sign corporate CLA with ASF? If so, could you point us to the document that 
needs to be signed? Can we contribute in the meantime?

Thank you
Przemyslaw Tredak

On 2017-09-01 12:28, Henri Yandell  wrote: 
> I've listed the top 100 contributors (as of the other day) on GitHub here:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ICLA+Progress
> 
> With a check if they have signed an ICLA.
> 
> John/Justin - can you confirm that we don't have to get an ICLA signed from
> someone whose significant contributions have only been since MXNet came to
> Apache? (Assuming it's not such a large piece of work that would flag for
> software-grant/ICLA - a new component etc).
> 
> --
> 
> I'd like us (MXNet) to work our way down the list getting (up to
> yanqingmen) ICLAs signed. After that we will review the nature of the next
> batch of contributors commits and determine how much more ICLA signing we
> need.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hen
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> 
> > (cc to John and Justin as they'd asked about this)
> >
> > Looking at the current MXNet GitHub contributors list (411 contributors):
> >
> > We have 36 signed CLAs at this point.
> >
> > Of the top 36 contributors, the following 15 top contributors aren't
> > covered by a CLA:
> >
> > 8:sneakerkg
> > 9:kevinthesun  (post Incubation)
> > 17:hjk41
> > 18:mavenlin
> > 19:tornadomeet
> > 20:winstywang
> > 21:jermainewang
> > 22:qiaohaijun
> > 23:vchuravy
> > 25:Roshrini  (post Incubation)
> > 26:howard0su
> > 28:sbodenstein
> > 31:ptrendx  (post Incubation)
> > 35:zackchase   (post Incubation)
> > 36:yanqingmen
> >
> > Note that some of these are post entering the Incubator.
> >
> > Some of the 411 contributors we should ask for CLA/SGs from. Those above
> > are most likely the first to get agreements signed from, and we need to
> > determine how far down the list to go.
> >
> > The git logs are trickier to use as they don't use the github login; so
> > doing an analysis of the diffs themselves is trickier.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> 

windows ci problem

[shiwen hu]

some error like " Cannot contact mxnet-win7: java.lang.InterruptedException"
and jenkins is blocked

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 310

[Apache Jenkins Server]

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/310/