Meanwhile, the remaining correctness and performance issues of sparse maxpooling backward operations have been fixed (SYSTEMML-2034, 2035). So I think we're in good shape to cut an RC1 now.
Regards, Matthias On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Matthias Boehm <mboe...@gmail.com> wrote: > After multiple runs of our perftest suite over 80MB-800GB with Spark 2.1 > and 2.2, with and without codegen, as well as with and without compression, > we found and fixed quite a number of issues. However, there are a couple of > remaining performance issues with sparse maxpooling operations, so I would > recommend to defer the RC1 for a couple of days until these issues are > fixed as well. > > Regards, > Matthias > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Krishna Kalyan <krishnakaly...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Regards, >> Krishna >> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Matthias Boehm <mboe...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > just FYI: I've created SYSTEMML-2011 to track all QA-related tasks and >> > issues. The first run of our (old) perftest suite for 80MB-80GB ran fine >> > except for a data generation issue on stratstats for the 80GB case. >> Btw, I >> > think it would be good to run both the old and new perftest for >> additional >> > validation. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Matthias >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Glenn Weidner <gweid...@us.ibm.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Glenn >> > > >> > > [image: Inactive hide details for "Niketan Pansare" ---11/08/2017 >> > 06:51:44 >> > > AM---+1. Thanks,]"Niketan Pansare" ---11/08/2017 06:51:44 AM---+1. >> > Thanks, >> > > >> > > From: "Niketan Pansare" <npan...@us.ibm.com> >> > > To: dev@systemml.apache.org >> > > Date: 11/08/2017 06:51 AM >> > > Subject: Re: SystemML 1.0 release timeline >> > > ------------------------------ >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > +1. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Niketan. >> > > >> > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Matthias Boehm <mboe...@googlemail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi all, >> > > > >> > > > we made some good progress regarding deep learning support, code >> > > > generation, and low-latency scoring - so, I'm looking forward to our >> > > > upcoming 1.0 release. Since it's our first stable release, I think >> it >> > > would >> > > > be a good idea to allocate some extra time for QA. How about we >> shoot >> > for >> > > a >> > > > release candidate Dec 1? >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Matthias >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
