+1. I have heard this before elsewhere if you don't understand the code, give it a name like "hacky", "does not follow the pattern", "unmaintainable", etc., may all that be true but it does not help making cliched and disrespectful comments about someone else's contributions. the code is not going on a ramp walk for a beauty contest. Instead of subscribing to such software fallacies, it would help the community to make a decision if concrete examples of limitations, drawbacks, missing features are given.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any way, > can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky > solution"? This is derogatory slang and the statement was not supported > with any justification for such name-calling. Someone spent a good deal of > time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for its > purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript port > as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts > "hacky". Please respect what came before. > > Thanks for understanding, > > -Chris > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users > > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and > > instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build > successfully. > > > > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution? > > > > Pedro. > > >
