Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries ( eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity without any additional gains.
Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into mxnet codebase. To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the migrating process. Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code base to preserve the contribution history. Tianqi On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque <alfredo.lu...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote: > Do you have a link to both of these proposals? > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <anirudhk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Pedro, > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea. > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor( > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here. > > > > - > > Anirudh > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy < > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo. > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow. > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change? > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend. > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > >
