Thanks for bringing this up Roshani. To give everyone some background, I'm working under the assumption that this is a blocking PR. I'm updating the PR to reflect the requests from Steffen/Eric. I'm also trying to make a few small refactors that should make it impossible to affect non-TRT users.
That being said I'm not sure there's a strong desire from my (or the other contributor's) perspective that this goes into the 1.3 release. What we'd like to prioritize is that we have some quick iterations between reviewers and contributors, and that we get this merged into master as soon as possible so we can make follow-up PRs/improvements. I would actually disagree with Hagay's last point (the Con). I think so long as we get this into master we'll be able to provide some convenient methods for interested users (pip packages and Docker images). So I'd say this is a non-issue. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:05 PM Roshani Nagmote <roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Right now, we are delaying MXNet 1.3 release for pending TensorRT PR ( > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 ). > > I wanted to ask everyone for their opinions if we should delay the release > to get tensorRT integration in or we should go ahead with the release and > include tensorRT in next release. Please provide suggestions. > > Thanks, > Roshani > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:45 AM Hagay Lupesko <lupe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some thoughts: why not keep it out of 1.3, and merge it into master so it > > can go out with 1.4 instead? > > Pros: > > - Reduce quality risks for 1.3 > > - More time to test and get feedback before release > > - Avoid further delays in 1.3 release (lots of good stuff there already > for > > users) > > Cons: > > - People will need to get master to experiment with TRT (not a major > issue > > IMO) > > > > Besides, TRT requires a build flag anyway, so MXNet users consuming built > > packages (PyPi, Scala) will anyway not be able to try it out unless > > building from source... > > > > Thoughts? > > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 10:38 PM Steffen Rochel <steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Marek, Kellen, Jun, Da, Eric, myself and a few other people discussed > > > offline about TensorRT integration PR ( > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 ). We do agree > that > > > it > > > would be good to include the PR into upcoming 1.3 release, but are all > > > concerned about the risk involved and the breaking API change. The > > > discussion converged to following proposal. (1) change to contrib PR > and > > > (2) define a different top level API to indicate that the package is > part > > > of contrib and experimental (details of API TBD between Marek, Kellen > and > > > Eric). This change would allow to include TRT integration with v1.3 to > > > enable users to try TRT with MXNet, minimize the risk and avoid > breaking > > > API change. > > > To accommodate the change the request is to delay RC for a few days. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Steffen > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:08 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have created a wiki for tracking MXNet 1.3 release with the > timeline. > > > > Please take a look here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.3.0+Release+Status > > > > > > > > I am still waiting for following 2 PRs to get merged: > > > > TRT integration: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > > > > Gluon RNN: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11482 > > > > > > > > *Code freeze date is 08/02(Thursday).* Kindly try to complete ongoing > > > work > > > > and get these PRs merged. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Roshani > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:02 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Here is an update on MXNet 1.3 release: > > > > > I am still waiting for following PRs to get merged: > > > > > > > > > > TRT integration: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > > > > > Gluon RNN: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11482 > > > > > Scala examples: > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11753 > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11621 > > > > > > > > > > *New code freeze date is: 08/03* Please try to get your ongoing > PRs > > > > > merged by then. > > > > > > > > > > @Pedro, I didn't include your PRs in tracking list as you said > those > > > are > > > > > not critical for now. Please let me know if those needs to be > > included. > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11636 > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11562 > > > > > > > > > > I also have updated project proposal cwiki page to update the > status > > of > > > > > PRs. > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if I am missing something. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Roshani > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:34 PM Pedro Larroy < > > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I would like to get these PR merged: > > > > >> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11636 > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11562 > > > > >> > > > > >> How much longer until the code freeze? > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:44 AM Roshani Nagmote < > > > > >> roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > PRs waiting to be merged for 1.3 release: > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Are there any other PRs waiting to get merged? Please let me > know. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Release blocker issue: > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11853 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > @Marco, @Kellen, Thanks for bringing up the important topic. I > > agree > > > > >> with > > > > >> > you and we(internal Amazon team) will be working on fixing the > > > > disabled > > > > >> > tests. > > > > >> > Currently, my colleague, Hao Jin is working on compiling the > list > > of > > > > >> > disabled tests and leading the effort to fix them in the next > few > > > > days. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > Roshani > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:39 PM kellen sunderland < > > > > >> > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks again for organizing Roshani. I believe the TensorRT > > work > > > is > > > > >> > ready > > > > >> > > for a merge. Thanks to Marek and all the NVIDIA people for > > > > iterating > > > > >> on > > > > >> > > it. If possible could a committer review, make sure it meets > > > their > > > > >> > > expectations and then merge? PR is here: > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > To Marco's point. I'd recommend we review some of those > > disabled > > > > >> tests > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > > see how likely they are to affect users before we cut a > release. > > > > >> Many of > > > > >> > > them are obviously not too important from a user's point of > view > > > > (e.g. > > > > >> > > downloading a sometimes-offline image in a test). One idea > > would > > > be > > > > >> to > > > > >> > try > > > > >> > > and address as many of the customer impacting issues as > possible > > > > >> between > > > > >> > > code freeze and the RC0 vote. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:23 PM Marco de Abreu > > > > >> > > <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Hello Roshani, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > frequent releases are good and I'm supportive for this in > > > general > > > > in > > > > >> > > order > > > > >> > > > to provide our users with the latest features and > > improvements. > > > > But > > > > >> at > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > > moment, I'm slightly concerned about the test coverage due > to > > > > [1]. I > > > > >> > want > > > > >> > > > us to be conscious about cutting a release even though not > all > > > > tests > > > > >> > are > > > > >> > > > enabled (29 disabled tests [2] as of today). However, I > > > > acknowledge > > > > >> > that > > > > >> > > we > > > > >> > > > have improved by a lot lately thanks to everybody > > participating > > > > and > > > > >> > > leading > > > > >> > > > the efforts around improving flaky tests. From a > retrospective > > > > >> point of > > > > >> > > > view, we could say that these efforts have actually revealed > > > some > > > > >> quite > > > > >> > > > interesting bugs and thus the time was well spent and > yielded > > > good > > > > >> > > results. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > What does the community think about making another sprint of > > > > >> > improvements > > > > >> > > > around tests followed up by a period of 1-2 weeks during > which > > > we > > > > >> > observe > > > > >> > > > the failures closely to ensure that no critical paths are > > > > impacted? > > > > >> If > > > > >> > we > > > > >> > > > are in a good shape by then, we could continue the release > > > process > > > > >> and > > > > >> > at > > > > >> > > > the same time have the advantage of giving contributors more > > > lead > > > > >> time > > > > >> > to > > > > >> > > > finish their work to ensure it gets into the release in the > > > > desired > > > > >> > > > quality. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Again, thanks to everybody for their efforts during the last > > > weeks > > > > >> to > > > > >> > > > improve the usability and stability of MXNet. This is great > > > > >> community > > > > >> > > > effort and a good example of a community working together > > > towards > > > > a > > > > >> > > unified > > > > >> > > > goal! > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards, > > > > >> > > > Marco > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > [1]: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d6d81401de796a96677a112d6cd0b074b01f46564194ea89b86c6a3e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E > > > > >> > > > [2]: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Disabled+test%22 > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:34 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > > >> > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > As mentioned before, code freeze date is today July 23rd. > > > Please > > > > >> try > > > > >> > to > > > > >> > > > get > > > > >> > > > > your ongoing PRs merged by today. > > > > >> > > > > Please let me know if there are any concerns or need more > > > time. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > Roshani > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:16 PM Anirudh Acharya < > > > > >> > anirudhk...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > @sandeep krishnamurthy <sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> > the > > > bug > > > > >> fixes > > > > >> > > in > > > > >> > > > > the > > > > >> > > > > > R-package is something we have just begun, there will > not > > be > > > > >> > anything > > > > >> > > > > > significant to announce before the v1.3 code freeze. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:08 PM Steffen Rochel < > > > > >> > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > To make it easier to find the discussions related to > > > project > > > > >> > > > proposals > > > > >> > > > > I > > > > >> > > > > > > added a column with a link to the thread on dev@ for > > most > > > > >> > > projects. > > > > >> > > > > > > Appreciate for the project owners to fill in the > blanks > > > and > > > > to > > > > >> > > check > > > > >> > > > > > that I > > > > >> > > > > > > got the right threads. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards, > > > > >> > > > > > > Steffen > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:11 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > > >> > > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Kellen, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sure. I will update the notes with the information. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > > > > Roshani > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:01 PM kellen sunderland < > > > > >> > > > > > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hey Roshani, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Would you be able to add 'TensorRT Runtime > > > Integration' > > > > to > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > > > list > > > > >> > > > > > of > > > > >> > > > > > > > > upcoming features? We'll target getting the > release > > > in > > > > >> and > > > > >> > > > > polished > > > > >> > > > > > by > > > > >> > > > > > > > the > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 23rd. Design proposal is here: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Runtime+Integration+with+TensorRT > > > > >> > > > > > > > > and the lead contributor is Marek Kolodziej. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -Kellen > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:32 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > > >> > > > > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I am starting the process to prepare for Apache > > > MXNet > > > > >> > > > > (incubating) > > > > >> > > > > > > 1.3 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Release. Please find project proposal draft for > > this > > > > >> > release > > > > >> > > > > here: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > <* > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > < > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >* > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Target feature freeze date is July 23rd. A > release > > > > >> > candidate > > > > >> > > > will > > > > >> > > > > > be > > > > >> > > > > > > > cut > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > around Monday, August 6th and voting will > commence > > > > from > > > > >> > then > > > > >> > > > > until > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thursday, August 9th. If you have any additional > > > > >> features > > > > >> > in > > > > >> > > > > > progress > > > > >> > > > > > > > and > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would like to include it in this release, please > > > make > > > > >> sure > > > > >> > to > > > > >> > > > > > comment > > > > >> > > > > > > > so > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > can update the release notes. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Roshani > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
