# RFC: Type-Directed Relay Fuzzing Library
## Summary
This RFC proposes to employ fuzzing (mass generation of random programs) for
Relay in order to test the compiler. Fuzz testing for Relay can expose bugs and
improve confidence in the compiler by generating vastly more test cases than
can
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058730515
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058717815
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
[quote="areusch, post:4, topic:12220"]
committers have reviewed and one wants to approve the PR but not merge it until
the others have looked the PR over.
[/quote]
One of the main reasons of this work would be to explicitly remove this step,
though it makes sense to still limit the ability to
I'm not particularly unhappy with the current situation, but it could be
improved.
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058659652
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
I think this is a good idea. In my opinion it would be authors' responsibility
not to abuse the new ability: the merge directive should be added only once the
PR has reached an agreement. That is a subjective judgment, but it would be
hard to codify it.
One question---what should happen if
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058581293
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058568846
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058537881
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
enthusiastic +1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058509094
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058496950
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058495116
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058494070
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058492758
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
+1
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/10471#issuecomment-1058491019
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Hi all,
This is a formal vote thread to determine committer and PMC support for [[RFC]
Replace codeowners with more relevant
automation](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/58). Replying +1 here means
you support the RFC and we should merge it. This vote thread is due to the fact
that the
Overall I'm supportive. It looks like there is also [prior
art](https://github.com/jasonkuster/merge-bot) for an ASF project to do
something like this (although it's not clear how that bot is run). There is
also some mention of [preserving
provenance](https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=d..
17 matches
Mail list logo
