"Did ML lib increase their major version after deprecating RDD?" Answering my own question. They will increase major version after RDD is removed. This is basically scenario 1 from above. It would mean we release MXNet 2.0 with the Scala changes.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 9:54 PM, kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Why refactoring and deprecating means separating version from mxnet > core? Apache Spark MLLib refactors and deprecates a lot (e.g., they > deprecates RDD API), our C API also deprecates things, remember there are a > bunch of xxxEx in c_api.h?" > > Did ML lib increase their major version after deprecating RDD? > > "They will. Scala API runs auto code-generation to extract Symbol method > from MXNet core. For example, users can write and compile > Symbol.NewOperator with one Scala API version, but they cannot run it with > an mxnet-core .so which does not have NewOperator / or have NewOperator > with different args." > > Not sure I fully understand the scenario you're describing here. Is this > the case where a user writes a new operator against one version of > libmxnet.so and then runs it on an older version? In this case they'd need > to set a dependency on the current libmxnet.so ABI that they're running > against, and ensure that their jar was using that version or newer. This > is the goal of SemVer per interface. > > "By doing major version change to Scala API, we remind users 'hey, be > careful, we have something incompatible!' But then what?" > They either choose to update their package and then fix potential breaking > API changes (the likely case), or they stick with the current version. > > "Users get more confused with the version mapping. And it introduces > overhead to maintain." > I'm not sure why users even need to know about the version mapping. If > I'm only interested in the Scala package from maven, why do I care which > version of libmxnet.so I'm using? > > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Changing namespaces is one example of a required major version change, >> but >> > there are more reasons like general refactoring or some deprecated APIs >> > just being hard to maintain. >> >> Why refactoring and deprecating means separating version from mxnet core? >> Apache Spark MLLib refactors and deprecates a lot (e.g., they deprecates >> RDD API), our C API also deprecates things, remember there are a bunch of >> xxxEx in c_api.h? >> >> They won't get a strange error, assuming we're talking about Scala users >> > who are upgrading from a package with the same namespace they will rely >> on >> > the package manager to give them an update which should be painless. >> >> They will. Scala API runs auto code-generation to extract Symbol method >> from MXNet core. For example, users can write and compile >> Symbol.NewOperator with one Scala API version, but they cannot run it with >> an mxnet-core .so which does not have NewOperator / or have NewOperator >> with different args. >> >> By doing major version change to Scala API, we remind users 'hey, be >> careful, we have something incompatible!' But then what? Users get more >> confused with the version mapping. And it introduces overhead to maintain. >> >> @Chris, I think we can have two separate votes. >> >> >> 2018-03-11 9:19 GMT-07:00 Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Ok, so why don’t we have two votes? >> > >> > 1) change namespace is a separate vote since it’s a code change and has >> > different voting rules (can be vetoed) >> > >> > 2) whether to disconnect non-C-API versioning from C-API versioning and >> > have parallel versioning of all non-C APIs (process rule, so majority, I >> > think is the rule, right?) >> > >> > -Chris >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 8:46 AM kellen sunderland < >> > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Sorry, the namespace should have been 'org.apache.mxnet' with the >> > artifact >> > > as 'mxnet-incubating'. >> > > >> > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 4:44 PM, kellen sunderland < >> > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > YiZhi, In general I agree that your points and examples are the >> ideal >> > > > case, but in the MXNet situation there are some trade-offs we have >> to >> > > > make. Let me try to specifically answer your points: >> > > > >> > > > "Do you mean we have different version for 'ml.dmlc' namespace and >> > > > 'org.apache' namespace?" >> > > > No I am not trying to saying that. I believe Marco, Naveen and I are >> > all >> > > > proposing we use a single org.apache.incubating.mxnet namespace >> moving >> > > > forward, which would require a major version change to our product >> API >> > > > under our current versioning scheme. Marco and I are proposing we >> > apply >> > > > this MV change _only_ to the scala package's API. >> > > > >> > > > "How to tell which Scala API version works with which MXNet core >> > version? >> > > > By document?" >> > > > Yes users will be able to tell via the website, release docs, maven >> > > > package information, pom file, etc. >> > > > >> > > > "How many users will read the whole document and carefully pair the >> > > > version id before they run into a strange error and give up?" >> > > > They won't get a strange error, assuming we're talking about Scala >> > users >> > > > who are upgrading from a package with the same namespace they will >> rely >> > > on >> > > > the package manager to give them an update which should be painless. >> > > > >> > > > Secondly software developers understand that packages, not products, >> > have >> > > > versions. They know that these versions are used to communicate >> when >> > > APIs >> > > > are broken. There's examples of Apache packages doing this for >> > packages >> > > > that include multiple interfaces, for example first-party modules >> > > packaged >> > > > with the HTTP server, or log4j's language bindings (arguably quite >> > > similar >> > > > to what Naveen is doing). >> > > > >> > > > While we can debate the right way to version packages, I think >> there's >> > a >> > > > clear community decision here to get Naveen unblocked: >> > > > >> > > > (1) We continue semantically versioning across all APIs, meaning >> that >> > > this >> > > > change would get released with MXNet 2.*. >> > > > (2) You version package interfaces semantically and have a >> compatible >> > > > version mapping. >> > > > (3) Status quo, we continue to release a Scala package as-is, >> breaking >> > > > apache guidelines for artifact generation. >> > > > (4) We rely on the namespace change itself to communicate a change >> in >> > the >> > > > interface. We don't consider this a major change. >> > > > >> > > > My (non-binding) preference would be for option 2. >> > > > >> > > > -Kellen >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Marco de Abreu < >> > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Changing namespaces is one example of a required major version >> change, >> > > but >> > > >> there are more reasons like general refactoring or some deprecated >> > APIs >> > > >> just being hard to maintain. Things like these happen quite >> frequently >> > > and >> > > >> it's a problem every software project has to face and find a >> solution >> > > for. >> > > >> >> > > >> Regarding ' How to tell which Scala API version works with which >> MXNet >> > > >> core >> > > >> version?': We could just bundle MXNet with the released API >> package as >> > > we >> > > >> do right now, but we would give each interface it's own version and >> > > >> publish >> > > >> them on their distribution platforms accordingly. Just an example: >> > > >> >Scala-Package -> MXNet-Version >> > > >> >> 1.0 -> 1.0 >> > > >> >> 1.1 -> 1.1 >> > > >> >> 2.0 -> 1.2 >> > > >> >> 2.1 -> 1.3 >> > > >> >> 3.0 -> 2.0 >> > > >> >> > > >> > R-Package -> MXNet-Version >> > > >> >> 1.0 -> 1.0 >> > > >> >> 2.0 -> 1.1 >> > > >> >> 2.1 -> 1.2 >> > > >> >> 2.2 -> 1.3 >> > > >> >> 3.0 -> 2.0 >> > > >> >> > > >> This is always an N-to-1 mapping, while N being the versions of our >> > APIs >> > > >> and 1 the MXNet Core version. From MXNets versioning perspective, >> this >> > > >> would then looking the following: >> > > >> > MXNet-Version -> APIs >> > > >> >> 1.0 -> Scala_1.0; R_1.0 >> > > >> >> 1.1 -> Scala_1.1; R_2.0 >> > > >> >> 1.2 -> Scala_2.0; R_2.1 >> > > >> >> 1.3 -> Scala_2.1; R_2.2 >> > > >> >> 2.0 -> Scala_3.0; R_3.0 >> > > >> >> > > >> This would give us the liberty to develop MXNet without >> restricting us >> > > too >> > > >> much - of course, major version increments will still have to be >> > > >> considered >> > > >> carefully. I don't think that this would harm transparency too much >> > and >> > > >> there's no need to write big documentation. >> > > >> >> > > >> -Marco >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, YiZhi Liu <liuyi...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > I have no idea how separating Scala API version can solve the >> > > >> > 'compatibility' problem. Do you mean we have different version >> for >> > > >> > 'ml.dmlc' namespace and 'org.apache' namespace? Do these two >> > versions >> > > >> > have same behavior? How to tell which Scala API version works >> with >> > > >> > which MXNet core version? By document? How many users will read >> the >> > > >> > whole document and carefully pair the version id before they run >> > into >> > > >> > a strange error and give up? >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Moreover, changing namespace is an issue that is really rare and >> > > >> > hardly happens. For other 'compatibility' problem, for example, >> the >> > > >> > class/function definitions, should handle the compatibility >> itself. >> > > >> > You'll never expect a project to have a different version for >> > changing >> > > >> > 'calculate(int)' to 'calculate(float)', it should just add a new >> > > >> > function 'calculate(float)'. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Regarding 'In this case the Scala interface is clearly a separate >> > > >> > entity from the C API.'. Everything can be seen as a separate >> > entity, >> > > >> > the mxnet engine, the graph description, operators, python API, >> > gluon >> > > >> > API, etc. We should think carefully what we want to provide, and >> > what >> > > >> > our users need. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > As an example, Apache Spark, still has SparkR (R API), PySpark >> > (Python >> > > >> > API), MLLib, GraphX ... as part of its release, and have the same >> > > >> > version as Spark core as well as its Scala/Java API. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > 2018-03-10 23:58 GMT-08:00 kellen sunderland < >> > > >> kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com >> > > >> > >: >> > > >> > > +1 (non-binding) to what Marco is describing. +1 >> (non-binding) to >> > > >> > getting the Scala bindings with the namespace change into Maven. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The general best practice for SemVer, which is used by most >> > projects >> > > >> > that employ SemVer, is to apply SemVer to the public APIs of >> > packages >> > > >> that >> > > >> > ship with your project. If you have several independent APIs >> this >> > > could >> > > >> > mean that they are versioned separately from each other, and from >> > the >> > > >> > overall project versioning mechanism. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > For example, the .NET Core library ships with a number of >> > binaries, >> > > >> each >> > > >> > with their own SemVerioned APIs. They also have a high-level, >> easy >> > to >> > > >> > understand version for the package as a whole: >> > > >> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/versions/. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Nodesource has a good description of this: >> > > >> http://nodesource.com/blog/ >> > > >> > semver-a-primer/ >> > > >> > > “Semver is a scheme for interface versioning for the benefit of >> > > >> > interface consumers, thus if a tool has multiple interfaces, >> e.g. an >> > > API >> > > >> > and a CLI, these interfaces may evolve independent versioning.” >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > SemVer at its core is a communication mechanism to inform >> > developers >> > > >> of >> > > >> > incompatibilities. In this case the Scala interface is clearly a >> > > >> separate >> > > >> > entity from the C API. I.e. changing the Scala namespace isn’t >> > going >> > > to >> > > >> > break C API users. It does not communicate anything useful to >> these >> > > >> users >> > > >> > if we up their major version in response to a Scala change, it >> > simply >> > > >> > breaks compatibility. If we group all interfaces together, and >> > > >> increment >> > > >> > whenever any of them has a breaking change we’ll soon be at MXNet >> > > >> version >> > > >> > 587. We’ll be forcing our users to check compatibility and >> update >> > > their >> > > >> > dependency tracking constantly. The end result is that our users >> > will >> > > >> stop >> > > >> > pulling in new versions of the library. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > What I would propose is that (1) we have a high-level SemVer >> > system >> > > >> that >> > > >> > tracks our C_API. This is the ‘MXNet’ version that we generally >> > refer >> > > >> to >> > > >> > and emphasize for our public releases. For each API we have an >> > > >> independent >> > > >> > versioning system that if we can, we fix to the MXNet version. >> When >> > > it >> > > >> > makes sense we version these APIs independently. So for example >> we >> > > >> could >> > > >> > have a MXNet 1.2 release that ships with a 2.0 Scala API / R API. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > In terms of Apache process I think shipping artifacts with a >> > > >> non-Apache >> > > >> > namespace is a bigger issue than whatever versioning conventions >> we >> > > >> decide >> > > >> > to use. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -Kellen >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > From: Carin Meier >> > > >> > > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 1:41 PM >> > > >> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org >> > > >> > > Cc: d...@mxnet.apache.org >> > > >> > > Subject: Re: Publishing Scala Package/namespace change >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > +1 as well. I'm actively developing a Clojure package for MXNet >> > that >> > > >> uses >> > > >> > > the jars from the Scala package. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > - Carin >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:44 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com >> > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> +1 for changing the namespace asap. for the maven deploy, we >> can >> > > have >> > > >> > >> it build along with pip deployment. >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> 2018-03-09 10:15 GMT-08:00 Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > >> > Hi Guys, >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I am working on MXNet Scala Inference APIs >> > > >> > >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MXNET-50> along with >> > > >> another >> > > >> > >> > contributor Roshani. A while back I noticed that we haven't >> > been >> > > >> > >> publishing >> > > >> > >> > the scala package to Maven for a while now(last one being >> > > v0.11.1a >> > > >> > under >> > > >> > >> > the dmlc namespace). >> > > >> > >> > Currently users have to build the package manually and then >> use >> > > it, >> > > >> > this >> > > >> > >> > hinders adoption and also is painful to build everything >> from >> > > >> source. >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I also see that we haven't changed the namespace to >> org.apache >> > > and >> > > >> > >> instead >> > > >> > >> > are still ml.dmlc namespace. >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I wanted to seek your opinion about changing the MXNet-Scala >> > > >> package >> > > >> > >> > namespace to org.apache for the Scala package and publish to >> > > Maven >> > > >> in >> > > >> > the >> > > >> > >> > upcoming release. I understand that this probably breaks the >> > > Semver >> > > >> > >> > semantics that is agreed upon, However I would like to point >> > out >> > > >> that >> > > >> > the >> > > >> > >> > Scala package has never been published to maven as 1.0 under >> > > >> > org.apache. >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Open to suggestions. >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Thanks, Naveen >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> -- >> > > >> > >> Yizhi Liu >> > > >> > >> DMLC member >> > > >> > >> Amazon Web Services >> > > >> > >> Vancouver, Canada >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > -- >> > > >> > Yizhi Liu >> > > >> > DMLC member >> > > >> > Amazon Web Services >> > > >> > Vancouver, Canada >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Yizhi Liu >> DMLC member >> Amazon Web Services >> Vancouver, Canada >> > >
