systemml-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niketan Pansare" <npan...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Formalize a release candidate review process?
Date Mon, 23 May 2016 18:34:54 GMT

+1 for formalizing the release candidate process. Please note: the point 9
and 10 (i.e. performance suite) on 6-node cluster including XS (0.08 GB) to
XL (800 GB) datasets takes 12-15 days. This estimate only includes
following algorithms: l2svm, GLM binomial probit, linregcg, linregds,
multilogreg, msvm, naive bayes and kmeans. This does not include time to
re-execute failed cases (if any) and sparse experiments. So, if we include
point 9 and 10 in our release process, we need to be aware that it would
take additional two weeks.

Here are some statistics that could help us create smaller performance
suite:
1. 96% of time is spent in XL cases
2. 48% of time is spend in 3 cases (MultiLogReg XL cp+mr, cp+spark and
spark)
3. 75% of time is spend in 9 cases (MultiLogReg/MSVM/Kmeans XL cp+mr, cp
+spark and spark)

Thanks,

Niketan Pansare
IBM Almaden Research Center
E-mail: npansar At us.ibm.com
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-npansar



From:	Frederick R Reiss/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS
To:	dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
Date:	05/23/2016 09:57 AM
Subject:	Re: Formalize a release candidate review process?



+1 here too. A documented release process is a very good idea. Having a
written checklist will make it easier to delegate these tasks to volunteers
who want to help out with the project. It will also build confidence among
potential users, since we can point to exactly what testing has been done
on each release. And any vendors who are thinking of bundling SystemML with
their products will want this documentation to support their own release
processes.

Fred

Luciano Resende ---05/21/2016 10:38:05 AM---+1, we should create a web
page, about producing a release, where one section would be how to produc

From: Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com>
To: "dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org" <dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org>
Date: 05/21/2016 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Formalize a release candidate review process?



+1, we should create a web page, about producing a release, where one
section would be how to produce a release candidate, and another session
would be thse items below with a bit more info on how ro execute them...
And then people could claim these or respond to the vote with the things
they have tested.

Btw, for the build ones, we should recommend building with an empty maven
repo.

On Saturday, May 21, 2016, Deron Eriksson <deroneriksson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It might be nice to formalize what needs to be done when reviewing a
> release candidate. I don't mean this as something that would add
> bureaucracy that would slow us down. Rather, it would be nice to have
> something as simple as a basic checklist of items that we could volunteer
> to check. That way, we could avoid potentially duplicating effort, which
> would speed us up, and we could avoid potentially missing some critical
> checks, which would help validate the integrity of our releases.
>
> Some potential items to check:
> 1) Entire test suite should pass on OS X, Windows, and Linux.
> 2) All artifacts and accompanying checksums are present (see
>
>
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0.10.0-incubating-rc1/

> )
> 3) All artifacts containing SystemML classes can execute a 'hello world'
> example
> 4) LICENSE and NOTICE files for all the artifacts have been checked
> 5) SystemML runs algorithms locally in standalone single-node
> 5) SystemML runs algorithms on local Hadoop (hadoop jar ...)
> 6) SystemML runs algorithms on local Spark (spark-submit ...)
> 7) SystemML runs algorithms on a Hadoop cluster
> 8) SystemML runs algorithms on a Spark cluster
> 9) SystemML performance suite has been run on a Hadoop cluster
> 10) SystemML performance suite has been run on a Spark cluster
>
> Would this be too many things to check or too few? Are there any critical
> items missing?
>
> Deron
>


--
Sent from my Mobile device





Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/related (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message