I'd like to propose that we expedite the 1.4.0 release slightly as there doesn't seem to be a rule that prevents a minor release from happening at the same time of a patch release. This would shorten the time it takes for new features to reach users. Proposed revision to the timeline: - Code freeze: 11/9 - Release published: 11/22
If there's no issue about both the proposal and new timeline, I'd be happy to manage 1.4.0 release as release manager. -sz On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 7:56 AM Steffen Rochel <steffenroc...@gmail.com> wrote: > There have been no objections, so lazy vote passed. > Anton volunteered to manage the 1.3.1 release and Naveen will support him > as co-manager to handle the release tasks requiring committer powers. > Please support Anton for a smooth 1.3.1 release process. > > I'm still looking for volunteers to manage / co-manage the 1.4.0 release. > > Regards, > Steffen > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 7:33 PM Steffen Rochel <steffenroc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I calling a lazy vote to release MXNet > > 1.3.1 (patch release) and 1.4.0 (minor relase). > > > > Release content: release proposal page > > < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release > > > > > > Target milestones: > > *1.3.1* > > > > - Code Freeze: 10/31 > > - Release published: 11/13 > > > > *1.4.0:* > > > > - Code Freeze: 11/13 > > - Release published: 12/13 (if possible announce during NIPS) > > > > > > The vote will be open until Wednesday October 31, 2018 8.00pm PDT. > > > > Regards, > > Steffen > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:56 AM Steffen Rochel <steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> During the Hangout on Wednesday multiple release proposals have been > >> discussed. I summarized discussion here > >> < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Hangout+October+24th+2018+8am+and+5pm+PDT> > and > >> updated the release proposal page > >> < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release > > > >> . > >> Please review, provide feedback and propose changes. > >> I plan to start a lazy vote on Sunday regarding the release proposal. > >> > >> Calling for volunteers to manage the 1.3.1 and 1.4.0 release. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Steffen > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:20 AM kellen sunderland < > >> kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hey Steffen, > >>> > >>> Recommend these be merged into patch release: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12631 > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12603 > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12499 > >>> > >>> -Kellen > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:17 AM Zhao, Patric <patric.z...@intel.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Thanks to let us know this discussion. > >>> > Because we don't have enough bandwidth to track the different > sources, > >>> > like discussion forum. > >>> > > >>> > I think the best way is to open issue in the github so that we can > >>> > answer/solve the issue in time :) > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > > >>> > --Patric > >>> > > >>> > > -----Original Message----- > >>> > > From: Afrooze, Sina [mailto:sina....@gmail.com] > >>> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 1:14 AM > >>> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > >>> > > Cc: Ye, Jason Y <jason.y...@intel.com>; Zai, Alexander > >>> > > <alex...@amazon.com>; Zheng, Da <dzz...@amazon.com> > >>> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Next MXNet release > >>> > > > >>> > > This post suggests there is a regression from 1.1.0 to 1.2.1 > related > >>> to > >>> > > MKLDNN integration: > >>> https://discuss.mxnet.io/t/mxnet-1-2-1-module-get- > >>> > > outputs/1882 > >>> > > > >>> > > The error is related to MKLDNN layout not being converted back to > >>> MXNet > >>> > > layout in some operator: " !IsMKLDNNData() We can’t generate TBlob > >>> for > >>> > > MKLDNN data. Please use Reorder2Default() to generate a new NDArray > >>> > > first" > >>> > > > >>> > > Sina > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > On 9/30/18, 6:55 PM, "Steffen Rochel" <steffenroc...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks Patrick. > >>> > > Updated roadmap and next release content. > >>> > > > >>> > > Patrick - suggest to send a reminder to review the design doc > and > >>> > collect > >>> > > feedback. > >>> > > Are there still known issues or gaps before we declare MKL-DNN > >>> > > integration > >>> > > as GA? > >>> > > > >>> > > Regards, > >>> > > Steffen > >>> > > > >>> > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM Zhao, Patric < > >>> patric.z...@intel.com> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks, Steffen. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Regarding the next release note, two items from our side: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 1. (-remove) MKL-DNN integration is done. I think we can > remove > >>> > this > >>> > > item. > >>> > > > 2. (+add) MKL-DNN based graph optimization and quantization > by > >>> > > subgraph > >>> > > > Design doc: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Graph+Optimiz > >>> > > ation+and+Quantization+based+on+subgraph+and+MKL-DNN > >>> > > > Lead Contributor: Patric Zhao, > >>> > https://github.com/pengzhao-intel/ > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Regarding the Roadmap > >>> > > > (+add) Q1 2019: MKL-DNN RNN API supports > >>> > > > > >>> > > > BR, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > --Patric > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > -----Original Message----- > >>> > > > > From: kellen sunderland [mailto: > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com] > >>> > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2018 11:31 AM > >>> > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > >>> > > > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Next MXNet release > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Sorry I meant to say next 'Regarding the *minor* release'. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:27 AM kellen sunderland < > >>> > > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks for transparently setting a rough timeline > >>> Steffen. I > >>> > think > >>> > > > > > this will go a long way in helping the community plan > their > >>> > work, even > >>> > > > > > if the details change somewhat on the road to the > release. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Regarding the major release: I would propose we unify > >>> TensorRT > >>> > with > >>> > > > > > the subgraph operator work. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Regarding the patch release: There were a few minor > >>> > stack/buffer > >>> > > > > > overflows exposed by ASAN that have been addressed. It's > >>> > probably > >>> > > a > >>> > > > > > good idea to include them in a patch release, as they at > >>> best > >>> > result > >>> > > > > > in non-deterministic behaviour. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > -Kellen > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:39 AM Steffen Rochel > >>> > > > > > <steffenroc...@gmail.com> > >>> > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> I updated > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+f > >>> > > > > >> or+next+MXNet+Release > >>> > > > > >> , > >>> > > > > >> removed the completed items from 1.3 release and would > >>> like to > >>> > > kick > >>> > > > > >> off discussion about the next release. Please suggest > >>> what you > >>> > > would > >>> > > > > >> like to see included in the next release together with > >>> link > >>> > to design > >>> > > > > >> proposal (appropriately for the size and complexity of > the > >>> > proposal) > >>> > > > > >> or suggest changes. > >>> > > > > >> I suggest to target the next release for December 2018 > to > >>> > frame the > >>> > > > > >> discussion. > >>> > > > > >> Lets include review of > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Roadmap - > >>> > > > > >> time to update and discuss changes. > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> From the 1.3 release we had discussion regarding > >>> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11849 > >>> and > >>> > > resolution > >>> > > > > >> in > >>> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12412 . > >>> > > > > >> Are you aware of critical issues and feedback from user > >>> which > >>> > we > >>> > > > > >> should consider for a potential 1.3.1 patch release. > >>> Should we > >>> > > > > >> include PR 12412 in a potential patch release? > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> Regards, > >>> > > > > >> Steffen > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> >
