Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

placeholder for ibm sample pipelines and corresponding components #731

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 6, 2019
Merged

placeholder for ibm sample pipelines and corresponding components #731

merged 4 commits into from
Feb 6, 2019

Conversation

animeshsingh
Copy link
Contributor

@animeshsingh animeshsingh commented Jan 24, 2019 •
edited by jlewi
Loading

As per the discussion with @vicaire , creating placeholder for ibm sample pipelines and corresponding components

This change is Reviewable

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @animeshsingh. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

1 similar comment
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @animeshsingh. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubeflow member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@Ark-kun
Copy link
Contributor

Ark-kun commented Jan 24, 2019

Should these components go to /contrib/components?

@animeshsingh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks. Given that components/samples are anyways supposed to be examples, it would make sense to go at a minimum in the directory structure agreed upon with @vicaire and @jlewi

@vicaire
Copy link
Contributor

vicaire commented Jan 25, 2019

Hi animeshsingh@, sorry for the churn, we already have contributions in:

pipelines/contrib/components/openvino, and
pipelines/contrib/samples/openvino.

Could you use:

pipelines/contrib/components/ibm, and
pipelines/contrib/samples/imb?

Thanks.

@googlebot
Copy link
Collaborator

So there's good news and bad news.

👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there.

😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored or co-authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request.

Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the cla/google commit status will not change from this state. It's up to you to confirm consent of all the commit author(s), set the cla label to yes (if enabled on your project), and then merge this pull request when appropriate.

@animeshsingh animeshsingh reopened this Jan 29, 2019
@googlebot
Copy link
Collaborator

CLAs look good, thanks!

@animeshsingh
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vicaire your comments should have been resolved. Thanks for going through this

@animeshsingh
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vicaire checking on this? Can this be merged?

@vicaire
Copy link
Contributor

vicaire commented Feb 5, 2019

Hi animeshsingh@,

Thanks for addressing the comments. There is one issue left. It seems that the requirement to release a binary are a bit complicated (kubeflow/pipeline has to go through a process to, for instance, release container images; binaries have a more complicated process).

Would it be possible to not include the binary? And instead include the code of this binary and how to create it from the code?

@animeshsingh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @vicaire . Just removed the ffdl binary, and we pull it now as part of Docker build

@vicaire
Copy link
Contributor

vicaire commented Feb 6, 2019

Great thanks

@vicaire
Copy link
Contributor

vicaire commented Feb 6, 2019

/ok-to-test

@vicaire
Copy link
Contributor

vicaire commented Feb 6, 2019

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vicaire

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

1 similar comment
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vicaire

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit b5e529f into kubeflow:master Feb 6, 2019
Linchin pushed a commit to Linchin/pipelines that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2023
@jlewi
Fix workload identity tests by passing in app name. (kubeflow#731)
8d312f9 
* Related to GoogleCloudPlatform/kubeflow-distribution#82 ; The workload identity tests
  are failing because we need to know the name of the Kubeflow application
  in order to know what service accounts to check.
magdalenakuhn17 pushed a commit to magdalenakuhn17/pipelines that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2023
@jinchihe
Regenerate SDK for KFServing 0.3.0 (kubeflow#731)
31e330f
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@vicaire vicaire vicaire left review comments

@Ark-kun Ark-kun Awaiting requested review from Ark-kun

@qimingj qimingj Awaiting requested review from qimingj

@gaoning777 gaoning777 Awaiting requested review from gaoning777

Assignees

@vicaire vicaire

Labels
approved lgtm ok-to-test size/XXL
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@animeshsingh @k8s-ci-robot @Ark-kun @vicaire @googlebot