This is certainly one way to do it. However, the binary size limits our ability to publish pypi. So assuming that we want to have our binary on pypi still, we'd have to convince pypa to raise our limits. Thus, it seems to me that this hypothetical vote with respect to stopping nightly publish to pypi would likely only have one acceptable outcome.
This is more of an emergency situation as an essential distribution channel is currently broken so I'm focusing on the POC for now. -sz On 2019/12/03 18:28:44, Marco de Abreu <[email protected]> wrote: > Excellent! Could we maybe come up with a POC and a quick writeup and then > start a proper vote after everyone verified that it covers their use-cases? > > -Marco > > Sheng Zha <[email protected]> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, 19:24: > > > Yes, there is. We can also make it easier to access by using a > > geo-location based DNS server so that China users are directed to that > > local mirror. The rest of the world is already covered by the global > > cloudfront. > > > > -sz > > > > On 2019/12/03 18:22:22, Marco de Abreu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Isn't there an s3 endpoint in Beijing? > > > > > > It seems like this topic still warrants some discussion and thus I'd > > prefer > > > if we don't move forward with lazy consensus. > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > Tao Lv <[email protected]> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, 14:31: > > > > > > > * For pypi, we can use mirrors. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:28 PM Tao Lv <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As we have many users in China, I'm considering the accessibility of > > S3. > > > > > For pip, we can mirrors. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:24 PM Lausen, Leonard > > <[email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I would like to remind everyone that lazy consensus is assumed if no > > > > >> objections > > > > >> are raised before 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC. There has been some > > > > discussion > > > > >> about > > > > >> the proposal, but to my understanding no objections were raised. > > > > >> > > > > >> If the proposal is accepted, MXNet releases would be installed via > > > > >> > > > > >> pip install mxnet > > > > >> > > > > >> And release candidates via > > > > >> > > > > >> pip install --pre mxnet > > > > >> > > > > >> (or with the respective cuda version specifier appended etc.) > > > > >> > > > > >> To obtain releases built automatically from the master branch, users > > > > >> would need > > > > >> to specify something like "-f > > > > >> http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-X/nightly.html"; option to pip. > > > > >> > > > > >> Best regards > > > > >> Leonard > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 05:42 +0000, Lausen, Leonard wrote: > > > > >> > Hi MXNet Community, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > since more than 2 months our binary Python nightly releases > > published > > > > >> on Pypi > > > > >> > are broken. The problem is that our binaries exceed Pypi's size > > limit. > > > > >> > Decreasing the binary size by adding compression breaks > > third-party > > > > >> libraries > > > > >> > loading libmxnet.so > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16193 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Sheng requested Pypi to increase their size limit: > > > > >> > https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Currently "the biggest cost for PyPI from [the many MXNet binaries > > > > with > > > > >> > nightly > > > > >> > release to Pypi] is the bandwidth consumed when several hundred > > > > mirrors > > > > >> > attempt > > > > >> > to mirror each release immediately after it's published". So Pypi > > is > > > > not > > > > >> > inclined to allow us to upload even larger binaries on a nightly > > > > >> schedule. > > > > >> > Their compromise is to allow it on a weekly cadence. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > However, I would like the community to revisit the necessity of > > > > >> releasing pre- > > > > >> > release binaries to Pypi on a nightly (or weekly) cadence. > > Instead, we > > > > >> can > > > > >> > release nightly binaries ONLY to a public S3 bucket and instruct > > users > > > > >> to > > > > >> > install from there. On our side, we only need to prepare a html > > > > >> document that > > > > >> > contains links to all released nightly binaries. > > > > >> > Finally users will install the nightly releases via > > > > >> > > > > > >> > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 -f > > > > >> http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/ > > > > >> > nightly.html > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Instead of > > > > >> > > > > > >> > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Of course proper releases and release candidates should still be > > made > > > > >> > available > > > > >> > via Pypi. Thus releases would be installed via > > > > >> > > > > > >> > pip install mxnet-cu101 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > And release candidates via > > > > >> > > > > > >> > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > This will substantially reduce the costs of the Pypi project and > > in > > > > fact > > > > >> > matches > > > > >> > the installation experience provided by PyTorch. I don't think the > > > > >> benefit of > > > > >> > not including "-f > > > > >> http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/nightly.html"; > > > > >> > matches the costs we currently externalize to the Pypi team. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > This suggestion seems uncontroversial to me. Thus I would like to > > > > start > > > > >> lazy > > > > >> > consensus. If there are no objections, I will assume lazy > > consensus on > > > > >> > stopping > > > > >> > nightly releases to Pypi in 72hrs. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Best regards > > > > >> > Leonard > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
