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.

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

Add android_riscv64 to BUILD.bazel #201

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 20, 2023

Conversation

prashanthswami
Copy link
Collaborator

Downstream projects that process the Bazel file were failing as the recent introduction of the 'android_riscv64' target did not have a corresponding config_setting.

Downstream projects that process the Bazel file were failing as the
recent introduction of the 'android_riscv64' target did not have a
corresponding config_setting.
@prashanthswami
Copy link
Collaborator Author

For review: @malfet (please let me know if there's a more reasonable way of requesting reviews, I'm not familiar with how to do so other then '@'-ing you on each PR.

FYI: @davidben

@malfet malfet merged commit ef63460 into pytorch:main Nov 20, 2023
8 checks passed
@malfet
Copy link
Contributor

malfet commented Nov 20, 2023

@prashanthswami can you please mention what downstream dependencies you are referring to?
And what is the current plan for the repo releases? I.e. I assumed almost nobody should rely on trunk, but rather on tagged versions

@prashanthswami
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'll have to take a closer look internally, but in this particular case, it was XNNPACK (https://github.com/google/XNNPACK). As some folks were pulling that library they were also implicitly pulling in a new version of cpuinfo. Their build system was Bazel, so they got caught on my error when processing the file.

I guess to that point - you mention that we should be relying on tagged versions, but there's no tags or releases on this project, are there? When I look at the main page of this repo, I only see 1 branch - 0 tags - no releases.

@malfet
Copy link
Contributor

malfet commented Nov 20, 2023

@prashanthswami are you on PyTorch slack? Let's discuss how this project can go forward, as I don't think I have a bandwidth to be a dedicated reviewer of all the PRs that might come, and I would appreciate help setting up CI so that one does not need to ask for reformatting changes all the time

@prashanthswami
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I am not! But I have just now made a request for access.

@malfet
Copy link
Contributor

malfet commented Nov 20, 2023

@prashanthswami hmm, I don't see it yet. Should I send an invitation to an email from this PR?

@prashanthswami
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes, that would be great - for reference in case I filled out the wrong link, I used this form from the Pytorch dev site: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeADnUNW36fjKjYzyHDOzEB_abKQE9b6gqqW9NXse6O0MWh0A/viewform

@prashanthswami prashanthswami deleted the fix-blaze-file branch November 22, 2023 17:14
@prashanthswami
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Following up here - I noticed that I didn't get an email confirming that I submitted an invitation request, so I redid it. This time I got one, so perhaps I missed hitting submit? (Or maybe didn't flag 'send me a copy of responses').

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants