You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@tvm.apache.org by GitBox <gi...@apache.org> on 2022/04/08 14:14:16 UTC
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron opened a new pull request, #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
leandron opened a new pull request, #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66
This RFC proposes a new format to keep our Docker images used in CI, moving away from our current incremental numbering to a more meaningful format that contains a timestamp and the latest hash from the repository used to generate such images.
cc @areusch @driazati @Mousius @konturn @junrushao1994 @masahi @gromero @mehrdadh for visibility and reviews
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1104184809
> @leandron, looking at Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/hello-world) it would appear the convention for image names is to use `-` there as well (i.e. `tlcpack/ci-cpu` rather than `tlcpack/ci_cpu`) can we go for that one?
Sure. I’ll push an updated version with this and @gromero’s suggestion as well.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] areusch commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
areusch commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r846484600
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
it seems like the rollback process should be rolling back the `Jenkinsfile`, not tagging a new Docker image, so it would avoid this case. `git revert` should handle this, i think.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1104117194
Just friendly note here, that as I'm not hearing opposition, I'll move into creating a a PR to update the documentation and reflect the changes proposed here where appropriate.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] manupa-arm commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
manupa-arm commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r874939912
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
Hmmm, there is another perspective here.
Ideally, we should be verifying a new-built image using the dockerfile in the repo in every CI run.
Therefore, the revert should really be seen as a revert to the dockerfile.
However, due to various (practical) reasons we are sampling the dockerfile history instead.
Therefore, I'd say going backwards chronologically in the samples (i.e. "the current version minus one") should not be the solution.
I'd go further and say we should be really using an image before dockerfile change and this change proposal do that seamlessly. This will allow us to keep changes that happened before the offending change.
WDYT ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] areusch commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
areusch commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1095326411
@Mousius i support `-` instead of `_` (when running `docker/bash.sh`, you can then use `_` as a sort of rule of thumb to determine if you're referencing a variable-driven revision or a specific one)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Mousius commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
Mousius commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r847301225
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
For years we have been using a pattern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
```
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
Review Comment:
```suggestion
As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adoption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] manupa-arm commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
manupa-arm commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r874939912
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
Hmmm, there is another perspective here.
Ideally, we should be verifying a new-built image using the dockerfile in the repo in every CI run.
Therefore, the revert should really be seen as a revert to the dockerfile.
However, due to various (practical) reasons we are sampling the dockerfile history instead.
Therefore, I'd say going backwards chronologically in the samples (i.e. "the current version minus one") should not be the solution.
I'd go further and say we should be really using an image before dockerfile change and this change proposal do that seamlessly (subject to number of commits per nightly -- Im assuming docker-rebuild is nightly and at not main build). This will allow us to keep changes that happened before the offending change.
WDYT ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] manupa-arm commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
manupa-arm commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r874939912
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
Hmmm, there is another perspective here.
Ideally, we should be verifying a new-built image using the dockerfile in the repo in every CI run.
Therefore, the revert should really be seen as a revert to the dockerfile.
However, due to various (practical) reasons we are sampling the dockerfile history instead.
Therefore, I'd say going backwards chronologically in the samples (i.e. "the current version minus one") should not be the solution.
I'd go further and say we should be really using an image before dockerfile change and this change allows do that seamlessly. This will allow us to keep changes that happened before the offending change.
WDYT ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] gromero commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
gromero commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r847864893
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
@leandron I follow here but I think there is a typo in `However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.` i.e. s/`the`/`that`/? But even with that change I think that this phrase can be improved, because: "revert is quite rare but it will consume lots of time very often" seems a contraction in this context?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Lunderberg commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
Lunderberg commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r846174985
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
This might be a benefit, rather than a drawback. In the current naming scheme, if a rollback has occurred, then the previous image is no longer the current version minus one. This could cause an issue in the hypothetical situation below.
1. Docker image is updated from stable `N` to updated `N+1`.
2. Version `N+1` requires rollback, version number is decremented to stable `N`.
3. Docker image is updated from stable `N` to updated `N+2`.
4. Version `N+2` also requires rollback, version number is erroneously decremented to `N+1`, rather than being reverted to the stable `N`.
Avoiding the error in step 4 would require checking the git history to determine the previous stable version. By preventing "the current version minus one" from being used as a rule of thumb, it forces somebody to check the git history anyways and avoids this failure mode.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] gromero commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
gromero commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1151582418
> > > @leandron, looking at Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/hello-world) it would appear the convention for image names is to use `-` there as well (i.e. `tlcpack/ci-cpu` rather than `tlcpack/ci_cpu`) can we go for that one?
> >
> >
> > Sure. I’ll push an updated version with this and @gromero’s suggestion as well.
>
> @gromero the above change is still pending as far as I can see?
@Mousius hrm right. So we'll need @leandron to make the next move here.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] areusch commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
areusch commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1125242931
@leandron should we merge this? I think the change has landed in Jenkinsfile now
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] gromero commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
gromero commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1125764615
> cc @Mousius @gromero can you approve?
@leandron Hi. Are you still planing to change https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r854052265 ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] gromero commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
gromero commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r847864893
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
@leandron I think I follow here but I think there is a typo in `However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.` i.e. s/`the`/`that`/? But even with that change I think that this phrase can be improved, because: "revert is quite rare but it will consume lots of time very often" seems a contraction in this context?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r846239912
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
Agreed. I think the original text is more regarding the impact for people who are used to do the current process and will need to adjust to the proposed here.
Thanks for the comment.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] gromero commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
gromero commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1148090614
@Mousius I don't have any further comments on it. Are you ok with the current state of this RFC? If so, could you please approve the changes so I can merge it? Thanks!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r854052265
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
Agreed. I'll change it.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] areusch commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
areusch commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1125243456
cc @Mousius @gromero can you approve?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] driazati commented on a diff in pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
driazati commented on code in PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#discussion_r875327729
##########
rfcs/0000-docker-image-tags.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+- Feature Name: docker_image_tag_format
+- Start Date: 2022-04-08
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0000)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+
+Defines a format for TVM CI Docker images tag.
+
+# Motivation
+
+In the current format used to identify our Docker images, it is impossible to link back a given version of the image to which version of the repository that represents.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+
+For years we have been using a patern to version our CI Docker images, which is composed by v0.INCREMENTAL_NUMBER, e.g. tlcpack/ci_cpu:v0.80. Every time an image is updated, we bump the minor number, just as a way to release a new version.
+
+As the project is growing and given we recently have been improving the Docker images building process, it is time to consider using a more meaningful tagging scheme, so that it is easier to identify what is included in the images being used in our CI.
+
+When looking/using a Docker image, usually we would be interested in:
+
+1. How long ago was this image generated?
+2. What is the last change added in the current images being used in production?
+
+None of these questions can be answered by our current numbering scheme, and to get that information we would usually need to do some digging and inspecting the image to see what is in there.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+
+As an improvement to the current situation, this RFC proposes the adption of a tagging scheme currently used in the `tlcpackstaging` (https://hub.docker.com/u/tlcpackstaging) repository, composed by:
+
+* a timestamp YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
+* the last short git hash added in that image
+
+One example would be tlcpackstaging/ci_arm:20220201-115323-2af42ba8e. This tells us when this image was generated and up to which point in the repository is included.
+
+The advantage with the proposed scheme, is that we can just look back on our own repository to discover which changes to the Docker setup scripts (under docker/install/* in the TVM repository) as a way to check whether a given change is expected to be in the image.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Pointing to "the previous image" is obvious today, because it is just "the current version minus one". To revert the image in the proposed tagging scheme, we will need to adapt this process and use git history to discover which was the previous version in the repository. However, reverting images is quite rare so it should be something the will consume lots of time very often.
Review Comment:
fyi if my work in https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/11329 is successful we will be rebuilding the Docker images on every build and using docker hub only as a cache so reverts wouldn't be necessary outside the usual git process
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Mousius commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
Mousius commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1104178444
@leandron, looking at Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/hello-world) it would appear the convention for image names is to use `-` there as well (i.e. `tlcpack/ci-cpu` rather than `tlcpack/ci_cpu`) can we go for that one?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Mousius commented on pull request #66: [RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
Mousius commented on PR #66:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/66#issuecomment-1148390466
> > @leandron, looking at Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/hello-world) it would appear the convention for image names is to use `-` there as well (i.e. `tlcpack/ci-cpu` rather than `tlcpack/ci_cpu`) can we go for that one?
>
> Sure. I’ll push an updated version with this and @gromero’s suggestion as well.
@gromero the above change is still pending as far as I can see?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org