@Naveen No, I meant in general, for all bindings. Irrespective of whether we use a package management repository, being able to pull an image from docker hub would be convenient for anyone wanting to get started on MXNet or run services( as Kellen said).
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:20 AM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's a good idea Anirudh. It should help users easily get MXNet up > and running whether they're running services, following tutorials, etc. > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 8:10 AM Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't think we need for JVM languages, they have a good dependency > > management through Maven Central. We weren't publishing regularly to > Maven, > > now we do. > > > > Anirudh, I am guessing you are interested docker for R language, If the R > > packages were published to CRAN do you still see a need for docker ? > Could > > you elaborate how this would be helpful and easy if they were to use > other > > packages in CRAN? > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Anirudh Acharya <anirudhk...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Yes, correct cu90 is indeed there, thanks for pointing it. > > > > > > So the question, should we be publishing to Docker Hub as part of the > > > release process so that bindings other than python are also published > and > > > there is a policy on what cuda versions we publish? > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > ANirudh > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 9:56 PM Mu Li <muli....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > cu90 and cu90mkl are also available, see > > > > https://hub.docker.com/r/mxnet/python/tags/ > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Anirudh Acharya < > > anirudhk...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The python binding that is actively maintained is > > > > > > > > > > mxnet-mkl 1.2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other versions that use CUDA like mxnet-cu<xx> and mxnet-cu<xx>mkl > > are > > > > not > > > > > actively maintained. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 9:09 PM Mu Li <muli....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Surprisingly only the python binding is actively maintained. I > > > remember > > > > > we > > > > > > can easily push all bindings into docker hub through the script > in > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/docker. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Anirudh Acharya < > > > > anirudhk...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Docker Hub( https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet/ ) currently hosts > > > images > > > > > of > > > > > > > MXNet and its various bindings but it is not actively > maintained. > > > > > Should > > > > > > we > > > > > > > publish MXNet images to Docker Hub as part of the release > process > > > and > > > > > > > actively maintain it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pros of publishing docker images would be ease of use and > > > access > > > > to > > > > > > our > > > > > > > users. Is this something that should be included as part of the > > > > release > > > > > > > process? What does the community think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Anirudh Acharya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
