Thanks.

How do we go on advancing this PR then? all the questions have been
answered, performance numbers provided and more. Until how long can a
veto stand? Also without replies to contributors.

Pedro.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:44 PM Sheng Zha <zhash...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This vote is invalid as the original PR has been vetoed by a committer. A 
> vote on dev@ won't help you circumvent a veto.
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/06/14 23:59:33, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > This is a 5-day vote to act and wrap up an outstanding PR that removes
> > linkage with multiple OpenMP from 3rdparty and uses the system
> > provided one which might resolve a number of difficult to debug issues
> > and possible undefined behaviour.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12160
> >
> > See the comments in the thread for more details but in short, linking
> > with multiple openmp versions seems to lead to undefined behaviour,
> > plus it would simplify not having to deal with a custom openmp version
> > and rely on the platform provided one.
> >
> > This is expected to simplify builds and address a number of problems.
> > Seems it doesn't cause any performance degradation, (the Gluon tests
> > run almost 4x faster in my 64 core machine).
> >
> > There has been in depth study of performance implications by
> > contributors like Stanislav Tsukrov and Anton Chernov.  All the
> > concerns and comments from the reviewers have been addressed and we
> > can't keep asking open ended questions to block PRs. Reviewers are
> > expected to be proactive and responsive to contributors so we keep
> > encouraging active contributors.
> >
> > please vote to merge this PR accordingly:
> >
> > +1 = approve
> > +0 = no opinion
> > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> >
> > If we observe regressions reported by any internal performance systems
> > or by contributors the PR can be reverted easily. So it's not a one
> > way door. But it will be useful to try this in master for a while.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >

Reply via email to