Skip to content

release-train: develop -> staging - #652

Merged
tracebloc-release-train[bot] merged 1 commit into
stagingfrom
release-train/to-staging
Sep 9, 2026
Merged

release-train: develop -> staging#652
tracebloc-release-train[bot] merged 1 commit into
stagingfrom
release-train/to-staging

Conversation

@LukasWodka

@LukasWodka LukasWodka commented Sep 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated promotion by the release train (RFC-0008 D14). Head is the train-managed release-train/to-staging branch (a mirror of develop), so it never collides with a human PR. Merged only when the fr-gate is green.


Note

Low Risk
Comment-only changes with no runtime or CLI behavior changes.

Overview
Documentation-only update to internal/resources/resources.go comments so they match how client-runtime actually applies training resource envelopes.

The package header now states that GPU pods use the per-rank base multiplied by nvidia.com/gpu once bounded (with BestEffort behavior until then), and that the documented value is the CPU-pod ceiling.

The DefaultTraining comment is expanded to spell out per-rank base vs runtime scaling: CPU pods carry the value as-is; GPU pods get base × GPU count (with packing caps and admission rules); in-pod CPU is still split across ranks via engine thread-pool sizing. It also clarifies that tracebloc resources show reports the per-rank base, not the stamped multi-GPU envelope.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit e812c5a. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

… it times their rank count (#650)

The comment on DefaultTraining said the value was "quietly wrong above
world_size 1" and that per-job-vs-per-rank was an open question. Since
client-runtime#500 that is no longer what the runtime does with the
number: a GPU pod's rank count is its nvidia.com/gpu limit, and the
runtime stamps this per-rank base times that count, capped so the
node's GPU pods still pack, refusing admission on a single-node edge
when the scaled envelope can never be placed (client-runtime#483).
A CPU pod runs a CPU-only torch, so its world_size is 1 by construction.

Records the shipped behaviour where the number lives; changes no code.
The package caveat about GPU pods being BestEffort is narrowed to the
case where that is still true (single-GPU pods with the bound dark).

Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@LukasWodka

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

bugbot run

@tracebloc-release-train tracebloc-release-train Bot added the gate-nudge Toggled by the release train to (re-)fire the fr-gate label Sep 9, 2026

@cursor cursor Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✅ Bugbot reviewed your changes and found no new issues!

Comment @cursor review or bugbot run to trigger another review on this PR

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit e812c5a. Configure here.

@tracebloc-release-train tracebloc-release-train Bot removed the gate-nudge Toggled by the release train to (re-)fire the fr-gate label Sep 9, 2026
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot merged commit 61212a0 into staging Sep 9, 2026
55 checks passed
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot deleted the release-train/to-staging branch September 9, 2026 13:40
@LukasWodka

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Functional review — staging batch, 2026-09-09 (FR reviewer: LukasWodka; self-signoff per RFC-BACKEND-1405 D6)

Decision: PASS. Every card this promotion carried that sat at FR on staging is advanced to Ready for prod. Evidence pulled, not reconstructed (README → Functional review):

pass run verdict
fr-assist (artifact channels) release-train 34360917649 all OK — GH releases rc/latest (cli, client, data-ingestors), helm index stable-only, TestPyPI rc present and not behind prod, npm @latest stable / @staging newest rc, rc tags anchored to staging, cli smoke battery (installer + rc binary). 1 SKIPPED: cluster-scoped cli smoke (needs workspace credentials) — an absence, not a pass.
journey-tier-a, baseline none cell, staging harness against staging e2e-test-agent 34368861675 success, incl. D10 · change of state
journey-fleet scope=tasks, staging harness against staging, one leg per task e2e-test-agent 34368865960 12/16 green: causal_language_modeling, embeddings, image_classification, masked_language_modeling, object_detection, semantic_segmentation, sentence_pair_classification, tabular_classification, tabular_regression, text_classification, time_series_classification, token_classification. 4 red at Train a model on the use case: keypoint_detection, seq2seq, time_series_forecasting, time_to_event_prediction (BadRequest).
frontend-app smoke (Cypress, staging ref) frontend-app 34369790687 success (builds staging's frontend code; the smoke targets the dev API by design)
staging deployment liveness https://stg.tracebloc.io → 200 (/explore), https://stg-api.tracebloc.io → 401 (up, auth-gated) up

The 4 red fleet legs are not staging regressions. The same four tasks are red on develop in today's fleet run 34343444708 (which additionally fails embeddings — green on staging) and in yesterday's proof run 34254097123. They are the open Family C defects tracked under backend#3289 (time_to_event_prediction → backend#3292; time_series_forecasting → backend#3294; seq2seq / keypoint_detection → backend#3291/#3297 lineage). Staging is at least as healthy as develop on every task.

What this evidence does not cover, per the README, and is advanced anyway on the operator's (Lukas's) explicit instruction to clear the FR queue for a prod hop: interactive/TTY CLI prompt behaviour; per-ticket behaviour (one journey verdict is shared by every card in the batch); design-system-v2 visual output beyond Tests green and the npm @staging rc publish (Chromatic is unarmed); any step after the failing train step in the four red tasks. Cards whose behaviour lives only there carry no automated evidence — the sign-off on them is a judgement, recorded here as such.

Performed by the release-train operator session; mirror→card mapping derived from /commits/{sha}/pulls over this PR's commits (not from subject text).

@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot restored the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 04:42
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot deleted the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 04:42
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot restored the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 10:49
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot deleted the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 10:49
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot restored the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 14:50
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot deleted the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 14:50
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot restored the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 18:01
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot deleted the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 18:01
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot restored the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 19:09
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot deleted the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 19:09
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot restored the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 20:41
@tracebloc-release-train
tracebloc-release-train Bot deleted the release-train/to-staging branch September 10, 2026 20:41
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.

1 participant