You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was playing around with cog build on a custom stable-diffusion-v1-5 model and got bitten by adding the --separate-weights flag. There is hardly any documentation on how it is achieving the image layer separation, and so I only found out the hard way. 😄
Turns out it silently extends .dockerignore apparently by auto-guessing the model checkpoint paths (plus some default paths). As the checkpoint file structure is quite deep and complex in this case, this broke the build process, including any following one without the flag:
The following section was added to my .dockerignore (actually multiple times, for every build using --separate-weights).
While the models in this case do reside inside the checkpoint folder, this pattern only captures a subset of the files, so that the build eventually fails.
My suggestion would be to make this configuration explicit, for example by letting the user specify a path to the model root. And of course to add some documentation about what is actually going on.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I was playing around with
cog build
on a custom stable-diffusion-v1-5 model and got bitten by adding the--separate-weights
flag. There is hardly any documentation on how it is achieving the image layer separation, and so I only found out the hard way. 😄Turns out it silently extends
.dockerignore
apparently by auto-guessing the model checkpoint paths (plus some default paths). As the checkpoint file structure is quite deep and complex in this case, this broke the build process, including any following one without the flag:The following section was added to my
.dockerignore
(actually multiple times, for every build using --separate-weights).While the models in this case do reside inside the
checkpoint
folder, this pattern only captures a subset of the files, so that the build eventually fails.My suggestion would be to make this configuration explicit, for example by letting the user specify a path to the model root. And of course to add some documentation about what is actually going on.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: