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

initial step for stateful_poc to enable epctx for genai. #633

Draft
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: msb_release
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gblong1
Copy link

@gblong1 gblong1 commented Apr 1, 2025

Description

Addeding EPCtx flow for stateful_poc

Motivation and Context

Enables usage of EPCtx wrapped models.

@gblong1 gblong1 changed the base branch from stateful_poc_v2 to msb_release April 1, 2025 16:09
@jatinwadhwa921
Copy link

PR raised in the wrong way, pls follow this method to raise a pr https://wiki.ith.intel.com/display/EdgeIntegration/ONNX+Runtime+Synchronization+Strategies

@ankitm3k ankitm3k self-requested a review April 2, 2025 09:58
@gblong1
Copy link
Author

gblong1 commented Apr 2, 2025

@jatinwadhwa921 the issue you are highlighting is because it is not having the right branch name and is raised against another branch vs ovep-develop?

@jnagi-intel
Copy link

@jatinwadhwa921 the issue you are highlighting is because it is not having the right branch name and is raised against another branch vs ovep-develop?
Branch naming convention should be limited to branches created on intel fork. This PR is from a branch in user fork. @gblong1 Can you resolve the conflicts?

@jatinwadhwa921
Copy link

@jatinwadhwa921 the issue you are highlighting is because it is not having the right branch name and is raised against another branch vs ovep-develop?
Branch naming convention should be limited to branches created on intel fork. This PR is from a branch in user fork. @gblong1 Can you resolve the conflicts?

No, pls use the below method @gblong1

  1. fork the intel ort repo
  2. git checkout ovep-develop(in your forked repo)
  3. git checkout -b <dev_name/feature_name>
  4. Raise a pr to intel-ort (ovep-develop)
  5. This will trigger the internal ci(will help in checking basic unit test, some ort test, some basic model runs) which are done through internal ci (no gtax involved here)

@jnagi-intel
Copy link

jnagi-intel commented Apr 3, 2025

@jatinwadhwa921 the issue you are highlighting is because it is not having the right branch name and is raised against another branch vs ovep-develop?
Branch naming convention should be limited to branches created on intel fork. This PR is from a branch in user fork. @gblong1 Can you resolve the conflicts?

No, pls use the below method @gblong1

  1. fork the intel ort repo
  2. git checkout ovep-develop(in your forked repo)
  3. git checkout -b <dev_name/feature_name>
  4. Raise a pr to intel-ort (ovep-develop)
  5. This will trigger the internal ci(will help in checking basic unit test, some ort test, some basic model runs) which are done through internal ci (no gtax involved here)

From devops perspective, whenever a release branch is created, Internal CI should be enabled.

Currently you are enabling internal ci
on:
pull_request_target:
- **
^^ This does not trigger on PRs created from forks. In general, also, it's a bad idea to run on PR to every branch. User may create PRs to its own feature branch for tracking :).

instead enable it selectively, something like the following

on:
pull_request:
branches:
- ovep-develop
- rel-*
- releases/**

Instead of creating a release branch named msb_release, create releases/msb, rel-msb etc.
Also enable branch protection rules for release branches.

Branch naming should not be enforced on private forks. User fork is for the user to manage.

Internal CI should run on every PR created to ovep-develop. It shouldn't matter if the PR was created from a feature branch on the intel fork or a branch on the user's private fork.

I know it's not related to GTA :)

@gblong1 gblong1 marked this pull request as draft April 3, 2025 13:38
@gblong1
Copy link
Author

gblong1 commented Apr 3, 2025

Since this isn't targeted at ovep-develop, i'm converting to draft for now. there are other actions in flight which may result in this pr being re-targeted or dropped and resubmitted.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants