[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 690

[Apache Jenkins Server]

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/690/

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 688

[Apache Jenkins Server]

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/688/

1.0 release problems and TVM

[Chris Olivier]

tvm has a jar in it that (along with other things) is blocking 1,0 release.
Can someone on tvm team please address this?

Also, is mxnet 1.0 using tvm now?  I don't recall this being discussed at
all on dev@. If not, why is it in there?  There's no licensing references
as well, which is problematic.  Is it necessary for 1.0?

Re: 1.0 release problems and TVM

[Tianqi Chen]

As far as i know Mxnet is not using tvm for now. So you can simply not ship
that jar

Tianqi
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 PM Chris Olivier  wrote:

> tvm has a jar in it that (along with other things) is blocking 1,0 release.
> Can someone on tvm team please address this?
>
> Also, is mxnet 1.0 using tvm now?  I don't recall this being discussed at
> all on dev@. If not, why is it in there?  There's no licensing references
> as well, which is problematic.  Is it necessary for 1.0?
>

Re: 1.0 release problems and TVM

[Tianqi Chen]

I mean Mxnet is not using tvm as a direct dependency. The support is being
done in nnvm compiler, which is not part of the release

Tianqi
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM Tianqi Chen 
wrote:

> As far as i know Mxnet is not using tvm for now. So you can simply not
> ship that jar
>
> Tianqi
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 PM Chris Olivier 
> wrote:
>
>> tvm has a jar in it that (along with other things) is blocking 1,0
>> release.
>> Can someone on tvm team please address this?
>>
>> Also, is mxnet 1.0 using tvm now?  I don't recall this being discussed at
>> all on dev@. If not, why is it in there?  There's no licensing references
>> as well, which is problematic.  Is it necessary for 1.0?
>>
>

Re: 1.0 release problems and TVM

[Gautam]

MXNet-1.0 depends on nnvm @ 8d79cfd

which has TVM related commits.

So one of the solution could be to go back in nnvm which doesn't include
TVM.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Tianqi Chen 
wrote:

> I mean Mxnet is not using tvm as a direct dependency. The support is being
> done in nnvm compiler, which is not part of the release
>
> Tianqi
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
>
> > As far as i know Mxnet is not using tvm for now. So you can simply not
> > ship that jar
> >
> > Tianqi
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 PM Chris Olivier 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> tvm has a jar in it that (along with other things) is blocking 1,0
> >> release.
> >> Can someone on tvm team please address this?
> >>
> >> Also, is mxnet 1.0 using tvm now?  I don't recall this being discussed
> at
> >> all on dev@. If not, why is it in there?  There's no licensing
> references
> >> as well, which is problematic.  Is it necessary for 1.0?
> >>
> >
>



-- 
Best Regards,
Gautam Kumar

Re: 1.0 release problems and TVM

[Chris Olivier]

There appears to be licensing problems also with tvm. Can it just be
removed as a submodule? will the nnvm there build without it?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Tianqi Chen 
wrote:

> I mean Mxnet is not using tvm as a direct dependency. The support is being
> done in nnvm compiler, which is not part of the release
>
> Tianqi
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
>
> > As far as i know Mxnet is not using tvm for now. So you can simply not
> > ship that jar
> >
> > Tianqi
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 PM Chris Olivier 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> tvm has a jar in it that (along with other things) is blocking 1,0
> >> release.
> >> Can someone on tvm team please address this?
> >>
> >> Also, is mxnet 1.0 using tvm now?  I don't recall this being discussed
> at
> >> all on dev@. If not, why is it in there?  There's no licensing
> references
> >> as well, which is problematic.  Is it necessary for 1.0?
> >>
> >
>

Re: 1.0 release problems and TVM

[Tianqi Chen]

OK, let me clarify this. NNVM now contains two part of the library, to
facilitate the migration.

- NNVM core library, which does not depend on tvm, and is what MXNet using
now.
- NNVM compiler, which depends on core library and tvm.

So to build MXNet binary, you can simply use the current source tree,
without worrying whether TVM submodule is in source or not. You do not have
to ship binaries that are in TVM.

I do not recall any discussion in terms of licensing problem of TVM. as far
as I know it is Apache and follows the same license structure as nnvm did,
so if you want to ship tvm source, please let me know what the problem is
and we can work to fix that

Tianqi



On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:44 PM Gautam  wrote:

> MXNet-1.0 depends on nnvm @ 8d79cfd
>  5d5500b9dd>
> which has TVM related commits.
>
> So one of the solution could be to go back in nnvm which doesn't include
> TVM.
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
>
> > I mean Mxnet is not using tvm as a direct dependency. The support is
> being
> > done in nnvm compiler, which is not part of the release
> >
> > Tianqi
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM Tianqi Chen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As far as i know Mxnet is not using tvm for now. So you can simply not
> > > ship that jar
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 PM Chris Olivier 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> tvm has a jar in it that (along with other things) is blocking 1,0
> > >> release.
> > >> Can someone on tvm team please address this?
> > >>
> > >> Also, is mxnet 1.0 using tvm now?  I don't recall this being discussed
> > at
> > >> all on dev@. If not, why is it in there?  There's no licensing
> > references
> > >> as well, which is problematic.  Is it necessary for 1.0?
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Gautam Kumar
>

Re: 1.0 release problems and TVM

[Chris Olivier]

It is mentioned in the -1 email we got for rc0 release:

Hi,

-1 binding due to license, header issues and having a compiled jar in a
source release.

I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes correct
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE has issues (see below) I also note that license issues brought up
last time have not all been addressed. [22]
- NOTICE seem rather brief considering the number of Apache licensed
inclusion do any of them have NOTICE files?
- A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18]
[19] and many others
- A number of source look to have had the ASF header incorrectly added.
- Binary included in source release [20] Note there’s an unresolved legal
issue about this [21]

Have you run rat on this release it would of help pick up most of these
issues?

In this file [1] there’s a copyright notice but it also has an ASF header
which is a little odd. This also occurs in a number of other places.

This file [2] also look to incorrectly have an ASF header and it’s unclear
how the original code is licensed. From a quick like their seems to be many
files that incorrectly have ASF headers on them e.g. [5][6][7]
[10][12][13][14] and others.

This file [3] (and others) looks to come from the TVM project which is not
mentioned in license.

The license for this file [4] is missing from license.

The link for JQuery [8] is missing from the license. Also missing license
for these files [9][11][17] and probably others.

At this point I gave up so there may be other issues.

It also a good idea to publish your keys:
gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made Sat 25 Nov 07:48:02 2017 AEDT
gpg:using RSA key 80FD81D7703DF31B
gpg: requesting key 80FD81D7703DF31B from hkps server
hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key

It’s also a good idea to sign with an apache email address rather than a
gmail one.

I’m also curious about “CODEOWNERS” file as that doesn’t seem to fit with
any Apache model I’m aware of.

In “CONTRIBUTORS” there’s a long list of contributors - are their plan to
make any of these people committers?

Thanks,
Justin

1. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/perl-package/AI-MXNe
t/lib/AI/MXNet.pm
2. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/image-classi
fication/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc
3. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/src/op/op_util.cc
4. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/searcht
ools_custom.js
5. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/nn/pool.h
6. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib
/nn/deformable_im2col.h
7. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib
/psroi_pooling-inl.h
8. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/jquery-1.11.1.js
9. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cub/test/mersenne.h
10. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cmake/Modules/FindJeMalloc.cmake
11.  ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/dmlc-core/cmake/Modu
les/FindCrypto.cmake
12. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/speech-demo/
decode_mxnet.sh
13. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/speech-demo/
io_func/convert2kaldi.py
14. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/special
_functions-inl.h
15. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/rnn/bucket_R/rnn.train.R
16. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/tests/travis/r_vignettes.R
17. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/matlab/+mxnet/private/parse_json.m
18  apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/ps-lite/tests/test_simple_app.cc
19. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/dmlc-core/tracker/yarn
/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/dmlc/ApplicationMaster.java
20. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/apps/androi
d_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar
21.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-288
22. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7749


On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Tianqi Chen 
wrote:

> OK, let me clarify this. NNVM now contains two part of the library, to
> facilitate the migration.
>
> - NNVM core library, which does not depend on tvm, and is what MXNet using
> now.
> - NNVM compiler, which depends on core library and tvm.
>
> So to build MXNet binary, you can simply use the current source tree,
> without worrying whether TVM submodule is in source or not. You do not have
> to ship binaries that are in TVM.
>
> I do not recall any discussion in terms of licensing problem of TVM. as far
> as I know it is Apache and follows the same license structure as nnvm did,
> so if you want to ship tvm source, please let me know what the problem is
> and we can work to fix that
>
> Tianqi
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:44 PM Gautam  wrote:
>
> > MXNet-1.0 depends on nnvm @ 8d79cfd
> >  > 5d5500b9dd>
> > which has TVM related commits.
> >
> > So one of the solution could b

Re: 1.0 release problems and TVM

[Tianqi Chen]

I fixed the jar issue, also synced offline with Chris on slack

Tianqi

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Chris Olivier 
wrote:

> It is mentioned in the -1 email we got for rc0 release:
>
> Hi,
>
> -1 binding due to license, header issues and having a compiled jar in a
> source release.
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes correct
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE has issues (see below) I also note that license issues brought up
> last time have not all been addressed. [22]
> - NOTICE seem rather brief considering the number of Apache licensed
> inclusion do any of them have NOTICE files?
> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18]
> [19] and many others
> - A number of source look to have had the ASF header incorrectly added.
> - Binary included in source release [20] Note there’s an unresolved legal
> issue about this [21]
>
> Have you run rat on this release it would of help pick up most of these
> issues?
>
> In this file [1] there’s a copyright notice but it also has an ASF header
> which is a little odd. This also occurs in a number of other places.
>
> This file [2] also look to incorrectly have an ASF header and it’s unclear
> how the original code is licensed. From a quick like their seems to be many
> files that incorrectly have ASF headers on them e.g. [5][6][7]
> [10][12][13][14] and others.
>
> This file [3] (and others) looks to come from the TVM project which is not
> mentioned in license.
>
> The license for this file [4] is missing from license.
>
> The link for JQuery [8] is missing from the license. Also missing license
> for these files [9][11][17] and probably others.
>
> At this point I gave up so there may be other issues.
>
> It also a good idea to publish your keys:
> gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-
> incubating.tar.gz'
> gpg: Signature made Sat 25 Nov 07:48:02 2017 AEDT
> gpg:using RSA key 80FD81D7703DF31B
> gpg: requesting key 80FD81D7703DF31B from hkps server
> hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
> gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
>
> It’s also a good idea to sign with an apache email address rather than a
> gmail one.
>
> I’m also curious about “CODEOWNERS” file as that doesn’t seem to fit with
> any Apache model I’m aware of.
>
> In “CONTRIBUTORS” there’s a long list of contributors - are their plan to
> make any of these people committers?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/perl-package/AI-MXNe
> t/lib/AI/MXNet.pm
> 2. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/image-classi
> fication/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc
> 3. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/src/op/op_util.cc
> 4. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/searcht
> ools_custom.js
> 5. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/nn/pool.h
> 6. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib
> /nn/deformable_im2col.h
> 7. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib
> /psroi_pooling-inl.h
> 8. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/jquery-1.11.1.js
> 9. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cub/test/mersenne.h
> 10. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cmake/Modules/
> FindJeMalloc.cmake
> 11.  ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/dmlc-core/cmake/Modu
> les/FindCrypto.cmake
> 12. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/speech-demo/
> decode_mxnet.sh
> 13. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/speech-demo/
> io_func/convert2kaldi.py
> 14. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/special
> _functions-inl.h
> 15. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/rnn/bucket_R/rnn.train.R
> 16. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/tests/travis/r_vignettes.R
> 17. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/matlab/+mxnet/
> private/parse_json.m
> 18  apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/ps-lite/tests/test_simple_app.cc
> 19. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/dmlc-core/tracker/yarn
> /src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/dmlc/ApplicationMaster.java
> 20. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/apps/androi
> d_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar
> 21.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-288
> 22. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7749
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
>
> > OK, let me clarify this. NNVM now contains two part of the library, to
> > facilitate the migration.
> >
> > - NNVM core library, which does not depend on tvm, and is what MXNet
> using
> > now.
> > - NNVM compiler, which depends on core library and tvm.
> >
> > So to build MXNet binary, you can simply use the current source tree,
> > without worrying whether TVM submodule is in source or not. You do not
> have
> > to ship binaries that are in TVM.
> >
> > I do not recall any discussion in terms of licensing problem of TVM. as
> far
> > as I know it is Apache and follows the same license structure as nnvm
> did,
> > so if you want to