Re: Switch PR validation to PR-merge

fine with me On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:52 PM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Considering we're approaching the weekend, I'll switch PR-head off now. > Also, I will retrigger all PRs in order to have a clean state below all > PRs. If anybody objects afterwards, we can just

Re: Switch PR validation to PR-merge

Considering we're approaching the weekend, I'll switch PR-head off now. Also, I will retrigger all PRs in order to have a clean state below all PRs. If anybody objects afterwards, we can just flip the switch to re-enable these builds. -Marco On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Marco de Abreu <

Re: Module maintainers proposal

Unfortunately, yes. This is hardcoded by GitHub: https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/ Also, only committers can be selected as "code owners". Contributors will not be notified. What does everybody think about replacing the CODEOWNERS file with a proper task (maybe on CI) or service

Re: Module maintainers proposal

Does it have to be called "CODEOWNERS"? I would be more comfortable with it if it's a "watch list" where it just means you wish to watch code here or there in the source structure and anyone can add or remove their name from watching some part of the code at any time. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at

Re: Module maintainers proposal

On Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Cathedral-Bazaar-Musings-Accidental-Revolutionary-ebook/dp/B0026OR3LM On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I agree. How about we find another way to allow people to subscribe for > changes in a specific file

Re: Module maintainers proposal

I agree. How about we find another way to allow people to subscribe for changes in a specific file or directory? -Marco Am 12.01.2018 8:51 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" : > Have you read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"? > > http://www.unterstein.net/su/docs/CathBaz.pdf >

Re: Module maintainers proposal

Have you read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"? http://www.unterstein.net/su/docs/CathBaz.pdf One of the points I took from this is that once a project finds its stride, it actually runs more efficiently without centralization than with. -Chris On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Marco de Abreu <

Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.0.1

Hi Asmus, I do understand where the concern comes from. PR 8302 is indeed a large PR that changed a lot of code and still requires more efforts for review and fully test the changes. To provide some context, PR 8302 is a refactoring and improvement of PR 7931 based on review comments in

Re: Module maintainers proposal

I propose to adopt the proposal. +1 (non-binding) Steffen On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:39 PM Mu Li wrote: > Hi Isabel, > > My apologies that not saying that clearly. > > The purpose of this proposal is encouraging more contributors to help > review and merge PRs. And also hope

Re: R Build failure

Ok, Marco. Do all the permitted datasets reside in S3 or is this a todo item? Bhavin Thaker. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:28 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > It would make sense, but the license does not permit redistribution of the > GroupLens-Movie dataset. We already

Re: R Build failure

Does it make sense to cache the datasets into a (reliable) S3 bucket so the tests to run reliably? Does the dataset licensing allow downloading the dataset? Bhavin Thaker. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:52 AM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, since this server seems

Re: CI failure due to offline llvm.org

btw i think a manual delete of some sort is still necessary as we found that git clean (with the proper options) does not work 100% if the time. we found at the time reproducible situation in which it does not and it was breaking every build on that machine. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:30 AM Marco

Re: R Build failure

Hey all, since this server seems to be back up and somewhat stable I've create a revert PR. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9379 Do you all think we should leave this one disabled until it has been refactored, or should re-enable the test? On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Haibin

Re: CI failure due to offline llvm.org

Seems right to me, but I will have to investigate. I noted it down. -Marco Am 12.01.2018 1:21 nachm. schrieb "Pedro Larroy" < pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>: > I think Chris is right, git clean with the right options plus proper > initialization of the submodules should not make any difference

Re: CI failure due to offline llvm.org

I think Chris is right, git clean with the right options plus proper initialization of the submodules should not make any difference versus deleting the entire workspace. Right? On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 8:56 AM, kellen sunderland wrote: > Doing a few searches I see

Re: Infra ticket created for switching the PR validation strategy

Thank you, Sebastian! Am 12.01.2018 9:30 vorm. schrieb "Sebastian" : > FYI: I created a ticket for infra to switch the pr validation strategy as > decided upon in https://lists.apache.org/threa > d.html/2b0d3ef47c3c9e67b2c99f2bea089ad3879fc523657cab676e5ff >

Infra ticket created for switching the PR validation strategy

FYI: I created a ticket for infra to switch the pr validation strategy as decided upon in https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2b0d3ef47c3c9e67b2c99f2bea089ad3879fc523657cab676e5ff891@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15833 Best, Sebastian