RE: Suggestions for Design Proposal Template
Thanks, Naveen, totally agree with you. `Shepherd` is poetic name and I like it :) > -Original Message- > From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnav...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 11:37 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Suggestions for Design Proposal Template > > Hi Patric, > > Design template is some preliminary work that I did and plan to propose as > part of the PR best practice(criteria). I am still working on the PR document. > > Thanks for feedback on the Design Template and you make a great point. I > discussed a similar idea with a few contributors nearby (Steffen, Andrea, Da, > Haibin, Kellen) about adding a Shepherd to every medium and large > feature(what makes a medium/large feature is yet to discussed and agreed > upon) so authors can partner with another contributor to take their PRs to > completion. This will also expand the understanding of the code base. > > Your suggestion aligns very closely to what I was thinking, I will add a > section > called `Shepherd` in the template. I would suggest we have the feedback > happen on the cwiki document (you can double click a line to leave inline > feedback) or on dev@ list and the author can apply the feedback to the > design. I think the decision who would(or should) like to shepherd a feature > should also happen on dev@ as a part of the design discussion. > > Yes I agree suggestions/feedback should be timely, whether it should be 1 or > 2 weeks can be discussed and agreed upon here. > > And also thank you for writing the design documents. > > I will come back with a more concrete set of proposals shortly on the dev@ > and meanwhile if others have suggestions happy to take them. > > Thanks, Naveen > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Zhao, Patric wrote: > > > Hi MXNet owner, > > > > We (Intel engineers) have already wrote up several design proposals > > and published into cwiki. > > So, I really like this documents and it make things very clear. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > > Apache+MXNet+Design+Proposal+Template > > > > Furthermore, I suggest adding a section of "feedbacks from MXNet owner > > (committers)". > > It's better to assign the proposal to the committers and write up the > > committer's name in the doc. > > The committer owner should give a clear suggestion/decision about the > > proposal in a time slot (maybe two weeks). > > > > I know this will take the extra-efforts to the committer and owners. > > But it can make the whole project more efficient and we will have a > > clear goal. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Patric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Requesting slack access
Thank you Steffen, am learning as I go and I hope I can contribute to this amazing community in the near future. Thank you very much all for mxnet. Kind regards, Foivos On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:51 PM Steffen Rochel wrote: > Welcome Foivos, looking forward to your suggestions and recommendations. > Steffen > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:40 PM Foivos Diakogiannis < > phoevos.diakogian...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > could I please have slack access? > > > > Regards, > > Foivos > > >
Re: Requesting slack access
Welcome Foivos, looking forward to your suggestions and recommendations. Steffen On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:40 PM Foivos Diakogiannis < phoevos.diakogian...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > could I please have slack access? > > Regards, > Foivos >
Re: Suggestions for Design Proposal Template
Hi Patric, Design template is some preliminary work that I did and plan to propose as part of the PR best practice(criteria). I am still working on the PR document. Thanks for feedback on the Design Template and you make a great point. I discussed a similar idea with a few contributors nearby (Steffen, Andrea, Da, Haibin, Kellen) about adding a Shepherd to every medium and large feature(what makes a medium/large feature is yet to discussed and agreed upon) so authors can partner with another contributor to take their PRs to completion. This will also expand the understanding of the code base. Your suggestion aligns very closely to what I was thinking, I will add a section called `Shepherd` in the template. I would suggest we have the feedback happen on the cwiki document (you can double click a line to leave inline feedback) or on dev@ list and the author can apply the feedback to the design. I think the decision who would(or should) like to shepherd a feature should also happen on dev@ as a part of the design discussion. Yes I agree suggestions/feedback should be timely, whether it should be 1 or 2 weeks can be discussed and agreed upon here. And also thank you for writing the design documents. I will come back with a more concrete set of proposals shortly on the dev@ and meanwhile if others have suggestions happy to take them. Thanks, Naveen On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Zhao, Patric wrote: > Hi MXNet owner, > > We (Intel engineers) have already wrote up several design proposals and > published into cwiki. > So, I really like this documents and it make things very clear. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > Apache+MXNet+Design+Proposal+Template > > Furthermore, I suggest adding a section of "feedbacks from MXNet owner > (committers)". > It's better to assign the proposal to the committers and write up the > committer's name in the doc. > The committer owner should give a clear suggestion/decision about the > proposal in a time slot (maybe two weeks). > > I know this will take the extra-efforts to the committer and owners. > But it can make the whole project more efficient and we will have a clear > goal. > > > Thanks, > > --Patric > > > > > > > >
Suggestions for Design Proposal Template
Hi MXNet owner, We (Intel engineers) have already wrote up several design proposals and published into cwiki. So, I really like this documents and it make things very clear. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+Design+Proposal+Template Furthermore, I suggest adding a section of "feedbacks from MXNet owner (committers)". It's better to assign the proposal to the committers and write up the committer's name in the doc. The committer owner should give a clear suggestion/decision about the proposal in a time slot (maybe two weeks). I know this will take the extra-efforts to the committer and owners. But it can make the whole project more efficient and we will have a clear goal. Thanks, --Patric
Requesting slack access
Dear all, could I please have slack access? Regards, Foivos
Re: Growing number of open PRs and Labelling PRs
@Sheng - Thanks for the feedback. I agree PR template provides that info.
But, one major draw back is ability to filter, group and take actions
(review, merge, ping corresponding contributors). And when we have deployed
the labelling bot (hopefully soon to happen), we should be able to
disassociate from the need for committer.
Suggestion?
@Naveen - Thanks. I will make the change.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:55 PM Naveen Swamy wrote:
> suggest to change pr-ready-to-merge to pr-awaiting-merge? makes it easy to
> pick all pr related status.
>
> Also think `(then merge)` is not necessary in pr-awaiting-testing
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:44 PM, sandeep krishnamurthy <
> sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > << Sorry sent too early>>
> > Hello Community,
> >
> > Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for
> review,
> > pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
> >
> > Few of us committers (Naveen, Haibin, Anirudh and Me) and contributors
> > (Steffen and Hagay) met to discuss on how to improve the process in
> > reviewing the PR and allow more people join the review process.
> >
> > To shed some light on numbers:
> >
> > *(As of 6-Aug-2018)*
> >
> >- Total open PRs - 113 - Link
> >
> >- Total open PRs with No Reviews - 94 - Link
> > > 3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Anone>
> >(*Note:* Out of these there are comments for 72 PRs. This count is for
> >formally reviewing and approve/request change etc.)
> >
> >
> >- Changes Requested and awaiting contributors to update - 8 - Link
> > > 3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Achanges-requested>
> >- Oldest PR - Jan 19, 2018 - PR
> >
> >
> > One important issue observed is, "*Inability to filter the PR based on
> > state and component*". For this, one suggested solution is to "*label the
> > PRs*" like we label the issues. This will allow community members to
> filter
> > by area of interest, add review, committers can filter by state and take
> > necessary action.
> >
> > In this direction, I have created following 4 new labels.
> >
> > Please let us know your suggestions, and this is open for feedback and
> > changes.
> >
> >
> > -
> > pr-awaiting-review
> >
> > PR is waiting for code review
> > Edit Delete
> > - pr-awaiting-response
> >
> > PR is reviewed and waiting for contributor to respond
> > Edit Delete
> > - pr-awaiting-testing (then merge)
> > > awaiting-testing%20%28then%20merge%29>
> > PR is reviewed and waiting CI build and test
> > Edit Delete
> > - pr-ready-to-merge
> >
> > Review and CI is complete. Ready to Merge
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:35 PM sandeep krishnamurthy <
> > sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Community,
> > >
> > > Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for
> > > review, pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
> > >
> > > To shed some light on numbers:
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> >
>
--
Sandeep Krishnamurthy
Re: Growing number of open PRs and Labelling PRs
suggest to change pr-ready-to-merge to pr-awaiting-merge? makes it easy to
pick all pr related status.
Also think `(then merge)` is not necessary in pr-awaiting-testing
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:44 PM, sandeep krishnamurthy <
sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> << Sorry sent too early>>
> Hello Community,
>
> Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for review,
> pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
>
> Few of us committers (Naveen, Haibin, Anirudh and Me) and contributors
> (Steffen and Hagay) met to discuss on how to improve the process in
> reviewing the PR and allow more people join the review process.
>
> To shed some light on numbers:
>
> *(As of 6-Aug-2018)*
>
>- Total open PRs - 113 - Link
>
>- Total open PRs with No Reviews - 94 - Link
> 3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Anone>
>(*Note:* Out of these there are comments for 72 PRs. This count is for
>formally reviewing and approve/request change etc.)
>
>
>- Changes Requested and awaiting contributors to update - 8 - Link
> 3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Achanges-requested>
>- Oldest PR - Jan 19, 2018 - PR
>
>
> One important issue observed is, "*Inability to filter the PR based on
> state and component*". For this, one suggested solution is to "*label the
> PRs*" like we label the issues. This will allow community members to filter
> by area of interest, add review, committers can filter by state and take
> necessary action.
>
> In this direction, I have created following 4 new labels.
>
> Please let us know your suggestions, and this is open for feedback and
> changes.
>
>
> -
> pr-awaiting-review
>
> PR is waiting for code review
> Edit Delete
> - pr-awaiting-response
>
> PR is reviewed and waiting for contributor to respond
> Edit Delete
> - pr-awaiting-testing (then merge)
> awaiting-testing%20%28then%20merge%29>
> PR is reviewed and waiting CI build and test
> Edit Delete
> - pr-ready-to-merge
>
> Review and CI is complete. Ready to Merge
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:35 PM sandeep krishnamurthy <
> sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Community,
> >
> > Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for
> > review, pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
> >
> > To shed some light on numbers:
> >
> > --
> > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> >
>
>
> --
> Sandeep Krishnamurthy
>
Re: Growing number of open PRs and Labelling PRs
Hi Sandeep,
Sorry if I asked an obvious question, but is it required to introduce a new
solution that require committer access? We have an existing solution to
communicate the PR status, which is through the PR template checklist. The
PR checklist provides clickable options to reflect the PR status. It
doesn't require committer involvement and contributors can directly edit
the description themselves. It shows a progress bar that can be seen
directly in the pull requests page.
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls
Best regards,
-sz
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:44 PM, sandeep krishnamurthy <
sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> << Sorry sent too early>>
> Hello Community,
>
> Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for review,
> pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
>
> Few of us committers (Naveen, Haibin, Anirudh and Me) and contributors
> (Steffen and Hagay) met to discuss on how to improve the process in
> reviewing the PR and allow more people join the review process.
>
> To shed some light on numbers:
>
> *(As of 6-Aug-2018)*
>
>- Total open PRs - 113 - Link
>
>- Total open PRs with No Reviews - 94 - Link
> 3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Anone>
>(*Note:* Out of these there are comments for 72 PRs. This count is for
>formally reviewing and approve/request change etc.)
>
>
>- Changes Requested and awaiting contributors to update - 8 - Link
> 3Apr+is%3Aopen+review%3Achanges-requested>
>- Oldest PR - Jan 19, 2018 - PR
>
>
> One important issue observed is, "*Inability to filter the PR based on
> state and component*". For this, one suggested solution is to "*label the
> PRs*" like we label the issues. This will allow community members to filter
> by area of interest, add review, committers can filter by state and take
> necessary action.
>
> In this direction, I have created following 4 new labels.
>
> Please let us know your suggestions, and this is open for feedback and
> changes.
>
>
> -
> pr-awaiting-review
>
> PR is waiting for code review
> Edit Delete
> - pr-awaiting-response
>
> PR is reviewed and waiting for contributor to respond
> Edit Delete
> - pr-awaiting-testing (then merge)
> awaiting-testing%20%28then%20merge%29>
> PR is reviewed and waiting CI build and test
> Edit Delete
> - pr-ready-to-merge
>
> Review and CI is complete. Ready to Merge
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:35 PM sandeep krishnamurthy <
> sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Community,
> >
> > Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for
> > review, pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
> >
> > To shed some light on numbers:
> >
> > --
> > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> >
>
>
> --
> Sandeep Krishnamurthy
>
Re: Growing number of open PRs and Labelling PRs
<< Sorry sent too early>>
Hello Community,
Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for review,
pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
Few of us committers (Naveen, Haibin, Anirudh and Me) and contributors
(Steffen and Hagay) met to discuss on how to improve the process in
reviewing the PR and allow more people join the review process.
To shed some light on numbers:
*(As of 6-Aug-2018)*
- Total open PRs - 113 - Link
- Total open PRs with No Reviews - 94 - Link
(*Note:* Out of these there are comments for 72 PRs. This count is for
formally reviewing and approve/request change etc.)
- Changes Requested and awaiting contributors to update - 8 - Link
- Oldest PR - Jan 19, 2018 - PR
One important issue observed is, "*Inability to filter the PR based on
state and component*". For this, one suggested solution is to "*label the
PRs*" like we label the issues. This will allow community members to filter
by area of interest, add review, committers can filter by state and take
necessary action.
In this direction, I have created following 4 new labels.
Please let us know your suggestions, and this is open for feedback and
changes.
-
pr-awaiting-review
PR is waiting for code review
Edit Delete
- pr-awaiting-response
PR is reviewed and waiting for contributor to respond
Edit Delete
- pr-awaiting-testing (then merge)
PR is reviewed and waiting CI build and test
Edit Delete
- pr-ready-to-merge
Review and CI is complete. Ready to Merge
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:35 PM sandeep krishnamurthy <
sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Community,
>
> Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for
> review, pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
>
> To shed some light on numbers:
>
> --
> Sandeep Krishnamurthy
>
--
Sandeep Krishnamurthy
Re: Help with understanding docs
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Isabel Drost-Fromm wrote: > > > Am 8. August 2018 21:34:47 MESZ schrieb Tianqi Chen < > tqc...@cs.washington.edu>: > >As far as I understand, these are packages that are build on top of > >gluon > >and runs on MXNet, > > Going through the hosted subdomains that seems not quite correct (or the > content hosted is not entirely correct): > > "Welcome to the MxNet discussion forum." Is what I get as a greeting > navigating to discuss.mxnet.io > "This site faciliates data sharing for the MXNet project" is what I get > navigating to data.mxnet.io This site is deprecated (created before mxnet went to apache), we still kept it alive because some old codes may need data from it. > > > https://gluon-nlp.mxnet.io/ looks like something you describe. Not sure > who exactly is behind it in a legal sense (maybe this helps with > understanding where my confusion/worry I coming from for it: > https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/success-at-apache-the-apache1 ) > gluon-nlp and gluon-cv are two packaged based on gluon. It's still on early developing, we are considering to either donote them to apache or merge into mxnet when they are in a more mature sitation. At the same time, we are consualting lawyers for the trademark issue, e.g. if gluon is a trade-mark owned by Apache. > > https://zh.mxnet.io ... From what little I understand this looks like > some Apache mxnet blog in Chinese? > > It's a placeholder for the Chinese translated mxnet documents. Currently it's just a simple index page. > Plus the docs on gluon/mxnet hosted there. > > > >I personally feel it is great to see ecosystem build and content on top > >of > >what we are building > > Same here: ecosystem building on top and around clearly is great. > > What I find confusing is the mixture of content (mxnet specific, gluon > specific, both) which makes it hard for me as a user to discern which is > which. > > What I find confusing as well is that at least some of the content looks > like it might be official project content (it's even linked to from > official project docs), except it seems like it's not controlled by the > project? > > Isabel > > -- > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet. >
Growing number of open PRs and Labelling PRs
Hello Community,
Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for review,
pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
To shed some light on numbers:
--
Sandeep Krishnamurthy
Re: Help with understanding docs
Am 8. August 2018 21:34:47 MESZ schrieb Tianqi Chen : >As far as I understand, these are packages that are build on top of >gluon >and runs on MXNet, Going through the hosted subdomains that seems not quite correct (or the content hosted is not entirely correct): "Welcome to the MxNet discussion forum." Is what I get as a greeting navigating to discuss.mxnet.io "This site faciliates data sharing for the MXNet project" is what I get navigating to data.mxnet.io https://gluon-nlp.mxnet.io/ looks like something you describe. Not sure who exactly is behind it in a legal sense (maybe this helps with understanding where my confusion/worry I coming from for it: https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/success-at-apache-the-apache1 ) https://zh.mxnet.io ... From what little I understand this looks like some Apache mxnet blog in Chinese? Plus the docs on gluon/mxnet hosted there. >I personally feel it is great to see ecosystem build and content on top >of >what we are building Same here: ecosystem building on top and around clearly is great. What I find confusing is the mixture of content (mxnet specific, gluon specific, both) which makes it hard for me as a user to discern which is which. What I find confusing as well is that at least some of the content looks like it might be official project content (it's even linked to from official project docs), except it seems like it's not controlled by the project? Isabel -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: Ticket for github bot account
Good to see we are working on this! This bot would be really helpful to the community. Ref links to Cathy's work: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Machine+Learning+Based+GitHub+Bot Code where it is stored: https://github.com/MXNetEdge/mxnet-infrastructure/tree/master/mxnet-bot/LabelBotAddLabels Thanks, Qing On 8/8/18, 1:26 PM, "Marco de Abreu" wrote: Sure, feel free to comment under the ticket! Naveen Swamy schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018, 22:25: > I suggest to name mxnet-bot instead of mxnet-ci-bot > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Sebastian wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I created the INFRA ticket for the bot account here > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16884 > > > > Best, > > Sebastian > > >
Re: Ticket for github bot account
Sure, feel free to comment under the ticket! Naveen Swamy schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018, 22:25: > I suggest to name mxnet-bot instead of mxnet-ci-bot > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Sebastian wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I created the INFRA ticket for the bot account here > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16884 > > > > Best, > > Sebastian > > >
Re: Ticket for github bot account
I suggest to name mxnet-bot instead of mxnet-ci-bot On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Sebastian wrote: > Hi, > > I created the INFRA ticket for the bot account here > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16884 > > Best, > Sebastian >
Re: A question about fusion of TVM and MXNet/mshadow
It is true that most of the current GPU code depends on mshadow. Porting the operator code entirely over to TVM will take quite a huge effort. So a more gradual path forward is to could be drop-in TVM to support cases that it optimizes well(ARM, AMDGPU, accelerators) while keeping the old infrastructure around for a while. This is my part of the technical assessment. There is not yet a proposal for a complete migration over TVM in the community. Tianqi On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Tao Sun wrote: > After some reading and learning of MXNet, I tentatively made the conclusion > that the migration of MXNet to TVM, if it exists, has yet finished. > Currently, mshadow, on which most of current operator code is still based, > seems to carry out the most functionality that TVM can carry ultimately. > Will anyone correct/confirm this conclusion? Will the community have a > plan/calendar to migrate to TVM? Thanks. > > > Tao Sun >
A question about fusion of TVM and MXNet/mshadow
After some reading and learning of MXNet, I tentatively made the conclusion that the migration of MXNet to TVM, if it exists, has yet finished. Currently, mshadow, on which most of current operator code is still based, seems to carry out the most functionality that TVM can carry ultimately. Will anyone correct/confirm this conclusion? Will the community have a plan/calendar to migrate to TVM? Thanks. Tao Sun
Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3
Thanks, Kellen for letting me know. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday. > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote > wrote: > > > Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a release blocker. Do you > > have any ETA by which it will be completed? Approximate time will also > > work. > > @zhi, Thanks for bringing this PR into notice. I will keep a track of it. > > > > -Roshani > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM Joshua Z. Zhang > > wrote: > > > > > I strongly suggest to track this PR > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908 < > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908> in 1.3 release > > > which fixed the usability issue for lower end machines that don’t have > as > > > large shared memory space as ec2 instances. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > - Zhi > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Roshani Nagmote < > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Right now, we are delaying MXNet 1.3 release for pending TensorRT PR > ( > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 ). > > > > > > > > I wanted to ask everyone for their opinions if we should delay the > > > release > > > > to get tensorRT integration in or we should go ahead with the release > > and > > > > include tensorRT in next release. Please provide suggestions. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Roshani > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:45 AM Hagay Lupesko > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Some thoughts: why not keep it out of 1.3, and merge it into master > so > > > it > > > >> can go out with 1.4 instead? > > > >> Pros: > > > >> - Reduce quality risks for 1.3 > > > >> - More time to test and get feedback before release > > > >> - Avoid further delays in 1.3 release (lots of good stuff there > > already > > > for > > > >> users) > > > >> Cons: > > > >> - People will need to get master to experiment with TRT (not a major > > > issue > > > >> IMO) > > > >> > > > >> Besides, TRT requires a build flag anyway, so MXNet users consuming > > > built > > > >> packages (PyPi, Scala) will anyway not be able to try it out unless > > > >> building from source... > > > >> > > > >> Thoughts? > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 10:38 PM Steffen Rochel < > > steffenroc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Marek, Kellen, Jun, Da, Eric, myself and a few other people > discussed > > > >>> offline about TensorRT integration PR ( > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 ). We do > agree > > > that > > > >>> it > > > >>> would be good to include the PR into upcoming 1.3 release, but are > > all > > > >>> concerned about the risk involved and the breaking API change. The > > > >>> discussion converged to following proposal. (1) change to contrib > PR > > > and > > > >>> (2) define a different top level API to indicate that the package > is > > > part > > > >>> of contrib and experimental (details of API TBD between Marek, > Kellen > > > and > > > >>> Eric). This change would allow to include TRT integration with v1.3 > > to > > > >>> enable users to try TRT with MXNet, minimize the risk and avoid > > > breaking > > > >>> API change. > > > >>> To accommodate the change the request is to delay RC for a few > days. > > > >>> > > > >>> Regards, > > > >>> Steffen > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:08 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > >> roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have created a wiki for tracking MXNet 1.3 release with the > > > timeline. > > > Please take a look here: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.3.0+Release+Status > > > > > > I am still waiting for following 2 PRs to get merged: > > > TRT integration: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > > > Gluon RNN: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11482 > > > > > > *Code freeze date is 08/02(Thursday).* Kindly try to complete > > ongoing > > > >>> work > > > and get these PRs merged. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Roshani > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:02 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > >>> roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Here is an update on MXNet 1.3 release: > > > > I am still waiting for following PRs to get merged: > > > > > > > > TRT integration: > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > > > > Gluon RNN: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11482 > > > > Scala examples: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11753 > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11621 > > > > > > > > *N
Re: Help with understanding docs
As far as I understand, these are packages that are build on top of gluon and runs on MXNet, it is up to the maintainers of these packages as well the the comitters to decide whether they want to put it into MXNet master. I personally feel it is great to see ecosystem build and content on top of what we are building Tianqi On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:26 PM Isabel Drost-Fromm wrote: > > > Am 8. August 2018 21:17:44 MESZ schrieb Mu Li : > >MXNet's website is http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/. I own mxnet.io, > >which was mxnet's main site before, but now we are using its subdomains > >to > >host various packages in the mxnet ecosystem. > > I'm still confused: There's what looks like content vital to the project > owned and controlled privately by one project member? Is the intention to > move that stuff over to mxnet.incubator or to keep it where it is? > > Isabel > > -- > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet. >
Re: Help with understanding docs
Am 8. August 2018 21:17:44 MESZ schrieb Mu Li : >MXNet's website is http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/. I own mxnet.io, >which was mxnet's main site before, but now we are using its subdomains >to >host various packages in the mxnet ecosystem. I'm still confused: There's what looks like content vital to the project owned and controlled privately by one project member? Is the intention to move that stuff over to mxnet.incubator or to keep it where it is? Isabel -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: Help with understanding docs
MXNet's website is http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/. I own mxnet.io, which was mxnet's main site before, but now we are using its subdomains to host various packages in the mxnet ecosystem. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Isabel Drost-Fromm wrote: > Hi, > > I had a bit of time recently to walk through some of the getting started > docs. First time setup of mxnet is really well described and worked > seamlessly. > > Next step was going through some getting started examples - the straight > dope docs linked from the mxnet setup page were useful for that. > > There are a couple questions though that were confusing to me: > > The docs are called Gluon Straight Dope, but hosted under: > https://gluon.mxnet.io > > Doing a whois without any further deep checking for mxnet.io the entry > revealed a German GmbH as owner? > > That caught my curiosity so I dug a little deeper: > > The site seems to also host what looks like mxnet models, directing users > towards m...@cs.cmu.edu for more information (http://data.mxnet.io/). > > It also seems to host the mxnet user discuss forum: > Http://discuss.mxnet.io > > As well as a mxnet blog in Chinese: Http://zh.mxnet.io > > And the docs for another project: https://gluon-nlp.mxnet.io/ > > Now I'm left puzzled as to what of the content on the site is specific to > mxnet, how much of the content is vital to the project (after all mxnet > docs link to it very prominently) and how much influence the Apache mxnet > PMC has on these resources. > > On first sight it looks like a leftover that hasn't made the migration to > asf infra yet, but I couldn't find a ticket related to that, so not sure if > that guess is accurate. I'd appreciate someone explain the story and > resolve my confusion. > > > Isabel > > > > > -- > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Help with understanding docs
Hi, I had a bit of time recently to walk through some of the getting started docs. First time setup of mxnet is really well described and worked seamlessly. Next step was going through some getting started examples - the straight dope docs linked from the mxnet setup page were useful for that. There are a couple questions though that were confusing to me: The docs are called Gluon Straight Dope, but hosted under: https://gluon.mxnet.io Doing a whois without any further deep checking for mxnet.io the entry revealed a German GmbH as owner? That caught my curiosity so I dug a little deeper: The site seems to also host what looks like mxnet models, directing users towards m...@cs.cmu.edu for more information (http://data.mxnet.io/). It also seems to host the mxnet user discuss forum: Http://discuss.mxnet.io As well as a mxnet blog in Chinese: Http://zh.mxnet.io And the docs for another project: https://gluon-nlp.mxnet.io/ Now I'm left puzzled as to what of the content on the site is specific to mxnet, how much of the content is vital to the project (after all mxnet docs link to it very prominently) and how much influence the Apache mxnet PMC has on these resources. On first sight it looks like a leftover that hasn't made the migration to asf infra yet, but I couldn't find a ticket related to that, so not sure if that guess is accurate. I'd appreciate someone explain the story and resolve my confusion. Isabel -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3
Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote wrote: > Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a release blocker. Do you > have any ETA by which it will be completed? Approximate time will also > work. > @zhi, Thanks for bringing this PR into notice. I will keep a track of it. > > -Roshani > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM Joshua Z. Zhang > wrote: > > > I strongly suggest to track this PR > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908 < > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908> in 1.3 release > > which fixed the usability issue for lower end machines that don’t have as > > large shared memory space as ec2 instances. > > > > Best, > > > > - Zhi > > > > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Roshani Nagmote > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Right now, we are delaying MXNet 1.3 release for pending TensorRT PR ( > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 ). > > > > > > I wanted to ask everyone for their opinions if we should delay the > > release > > > to get tensorRT integration in or we should go ahead with the release > and > > > include tensorRT in next release. Please provide suggestions. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Roshani > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:45 AM Hagay Lupesko > wrote: > > > > > >> Some thoughts: why not keep it out of 1.3, and merge it into master so > > it > > >> can go out with 1.4 instead? > > >> Pros: > > >> - Reduce quality risks for 1.3 > > >> - More time to test and get feedback before release > > >> - Avoid further delays in 1.3 release (lots of good stuff there > already > > for > > >> users) > > >> Cons: > > >> - People will need to get master to experiment with TRT (not a major > > issue > > >> IMO) > > >> > > >> Besides, TRT requires a build flag anyway, so MXNet users consuming > > built > > >> packages (PyPi, Scala) will anyway not be able to try it out unless > > >> building from source... > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> > > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 10:38 PM Steffen Rochel < > steffenroc...@gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Marek, Kellen, Jun, Da, Eric, myself and a few other people discussed > > >>> offline about TensorRT integration PR ( > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 ). We do agree > > that > > >>> it > > >>> would be good to include the PR into upcoming 1.3 release, but are > all > > >>> concerned about the risk involved and the breaking API change. The > > >>> discussion converged to following proposal. (1) change to contrib PR > > and > > >>> (2) define a different top level API to indicate that the package is > > part > > >>> of contrib and experimental (details of API TBD between Marek, Kellen > > and > > >>> Eric). This change would allow to include TRT integration with v1.3 > to > > >>> enable users to try TRT with MXNet, minimize the risk and avoid > > breaking > > >>> API change. > > >>> To accommodate the change the request is to delay RC for a few days. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Steffen > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:08 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > >> roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > Hi, > > > > I have created a wiki for tracking MXNet 1.3 release with the > > timeline. > > Please take a look here: > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.3.0+Release+Status > > > > I am still waiting for following 2 PRs to get merged: > > TRT integration: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > > Gluon RNN: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11482 > > > > *Code freeze date is 08/02(Thursday).* Kindly try to complete > ongoing > > >>> work > > and get these PRs merged. > > > > Thanks, > > Roshani > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:02 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > >>> roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Here is an update on MXNet 1.3 release: > > > I am still waiting for following PRs to get merged: > > > > > > TRT integration: > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > > > Gluon RNN: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11482 > > > Scala examples: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11753 > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11621 > > > > > > *New code freeze date is: 08/03* Please try to get your ongoing > PRs > > > merged by then. > > > > > > @Pedro, I didn't include your PRs in tracking list as you said > those > > >>> are > > > not critical for now. Please let me know if those needs to be > > >> included. > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11636 > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11562 > > > > > > I also have updated project proposal cwi
Ticket for github bot account
Hi, I created the INFRA ticket for the bot account here https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16884 Best, Sebastian
Re: MXNet Berlin Office Hours
Well we are a group of people physically located in Berlin and ready to provide help in person. A proposal to improve the process is described here [1]. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. And I just wanted to mention that we had already a few sessions with a lot of people being happy about the help they got. Sometimes a discussion in person makes a problem so much easier to solve. Best Anton [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/PROPOSAL%3A+Apache+MXNet%28Incubating%29+Office+Hours вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 4:32, Hen : > Noting that I find "MXNet Berlin team" a very confusing concept. > > Does that mean "Apache MXNet committers who happen to live in Berlin?" > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:27 AM, Anton Chernov > wrote: > > > Dear MXNet community, > > > > As part of our customer support the MXNet Berlin team is offering office > > hours on Tuesdays 6pm-7pm (CEST) | 9:00am-10am (PST). > > > > They happen onsite in the Amazon Berlin office: > > Krausenstraße 38, 10117 Berlin in BER12 01.501 > > > > Conference Bridge Information > > > > Chime meeting ID: 5461650798 > > Join via browser screen share: https://chime.aws/5461650798 > > Join via phone (US): +1-929-432-4463,,5461650798# > > Join via phone (US toll-free): +1-855-552-4463,,5461650798# > > International dial-in: https://chime.aws/dialinnumbers/ > > In-room video system: Ext: 62000, Meeting PIN: 5461650798# > > > > How can we help you? > > > > The following are a few examples of the types of consultations we > provide: > > > > * CI and infrastructure questions > > * Build system > > * Benchmarking > > * Edge devices (for example Raspberry Pi, Jetson) > > * C++ > > * General questions > > > > Before attending > > > > Try finding answers on: > > > > * Our discussion forum (https://discuss.mxnet.io) > > * StackOverflow mxnet tag (https://stackoverflow.com/ > > questions/tagged/mxnet) > > * MXNet website (https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/faq/) > > * Github issues (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues) > > > > If this does not help: > > > > In advance fill out a github issue ( > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/new) at least a few > days > > before so that the team member who will help with the issue gets a chance > > to prepare. > > > > Main point of contact through email: mxnet-edge-oncall-primary[at]a > > mazon.com > > > > Best regards > > Anton Chernov > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > > MXNet+Berlin+Office+Hours > > >
Re: Berlin office hours
There are issues with a camera - it require a desktop app. It is simpler to use zoom, as a desktop app - and not rely on a browser. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > Sure! > > There's no special reason. We just have free access to Chime and a lot of > contributors are familiar with it. Is there any reason you prefer Zoom or > do you have issues with Chime? > > -Marco > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018, > 13:39: > > > Understood. Let's try next Tuesday. > > > > Btw: why haven't use try zoom? > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Ah, there's the problem. The time is 6-7pm CEST. Kiev is not on CEST. > For > > > you, that would be 5-6pm in future. > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. > > 2018, > > > 12:40: > > > > > > > I opened it at 6 PM, Kyiv time. Nobody was there online. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > That's a pity! I'm afraid you just missed us. Could it be possible > > that > > > > > there is some mix-up due to the different time zones? The office > hour > > > > ended > > > > > 3 mins before you've sent the email. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have a link to your issue? Maybe we can resolve your > questions > > > on > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Di., 7. > Aug. > > > > 2018, > > > > > 18:03: > > > > > > > > > > > I have opened the link to the Chine meeting room - but I was > alone > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Yuelin Zhang < > > > > zhangyuelinch...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Marco, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will attend office hour for code review and label bot > > deployment > > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Cathy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marco de Abreu invalid>于2018年8月7日 > > > > > > 周二06:01写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to send out a quick reminder for todays office > hours: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > > > > > > > MXNet+Berlin+Office+Hours > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't forget to have a thread on dev@ before > attending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The office hour will be held by myself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Berlin office hours
Sure! There's no special reason. We just have free access to Chime and a lot of contributors are familiar with it. Is there any reason you prefer Zoom or do you have issues with Chime? -Marco Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018, 13:39: > Understood. Let's try next Tuesday. > > Btw: why haven't use try zoom? > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Ah, there's the problem. The time is 6-7pm CEST. Kiev is not on CEST. For > > you, that would be 5-6pm in future. > > > > -Marco > > > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. > 2018, > > 12:40: > > > > > I opened it at 6 PM, Kyiv time. Nobody was there online. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > That's a pity! I'm afraid you just missed us. Could it be possible > that > > > > there is some mix-up due to the different time zones? The office hour > > > ended > > > > 3 mins before you've sent the email. > > > > > > > > Do you have a link to your issue? Maybe we can resolve your questions > > on > > > > here. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Di., 7. Aug. > > > 2018, > > > > 18:03: > > > > > > > > > I have opened the link to the Chine meeting room - but I was alone > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Yuelin Zhang < > > > zhangyuelinch...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Marco, > > > > > > > > > > > > I will attend office hour for code review and label bot > deployment > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Cathy > > > > > > > > > > > > Marco de Abreu 于2018年8月7日 > > > > > 周二06:01写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to send out a quick reminder for todays office hours: > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > > > > > > MXNet+Berlin+Office+Hours > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't forget to have a thread on dev@ before attending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The office hour will be held by myself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Berlin office hours
Understood. Let's try next Tuesday. Btw: why haven't use try zoom? On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > Ah, there's the problem. The time is 6-7pm CEST. Kiev is not on CEST. For > you, that would be 5-6pm in future. > > -Marco > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018, > 12:40: > > > I opened it at 6 PM, Kyiv time. Nobody was there online. > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > That's a pity! I'm afraid you just missed us. Could it be possible that > > > there is some mix-up due to the different time zones? The office hour > > ended > > > 3 mins before you've sent the email. > > > > > > Do you have a link to your issue? Maybe we can resolve your questions > on > > > here. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Marco > > > > > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Di., 7. Aug. > > 2018, > > > 18:03: > > > > > > > I have opened the link to the Chine meeting room - but I was alone > > there. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Yuelin Zhang < > > zhangyuelinch...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Marco, > > > > > > > > > > I will attend office hour for code review and label bot deployment > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Cathy > > > > > > > > > > Marco de Abreu 于2018年8月7日 > > > > 周二06:01写道： > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to send out a quick reminder for todays office hours: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > > > > > MXNet+Berlin+Office+Hours > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't forget to have a thread on dev@ before attending. > > > > > > > > > > > > The office hour will be held by myself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Berlin office hours
Ah, there's the problem. The time is 6-7pm CEST. Kiev is not on CEST. For you, that would be 5-6pm in future. -Marco Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018, 12:40: > I opened it at 6 PM, Kyiv time. Nobody was there online. > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > That's a pity! I'm afraid you just missed us. Could it be possible that > > there is some mix-up due to the different time zones? The office hour > ended > > 3 mins before you've sent the email. > > > > Do you have a link to your issue? Maybe we can resolve your questions on > > here. > > > > Best regards, > > Marco > > > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Di., 7. Aug. > 2018, > > 18:03: > > > > > I have opened the link to the Chine meeting room - but I was alone > there. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Yuelin Zhang < > zhangyuelinch...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Marco, > > > > > > > > I will attend office hour for code review and label bot deployment > > > process. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Cathy > > > > > > > > Marco de Abreu 于2018年8月7日 > > > 周二06:01写道： > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to send out a quick reminder for todays office hours: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > > > > MXNet+Berlin+Office+Hours > > > > > > > > > > Please don't forget to have a thread on dev@ before attending. > > > > > > > > > > The office hour will be held by myself. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Berlin office hours
I opened it at 6 PM, Kyiv time. Nobody was there online. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > That's a pity! I'm afraid you just missed us. Could it be possible that > there is some mix-up due to the different time zones? The office hour ended > 3 mins before you've sent the email. > > Do you have a link to your issue? Maybe we can resolve your questions on > here. > > Best regards, > Marco > > Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Di., 7. Aug. 2018, > 18:03: > > > I have opened the link to the Chine meeting room - but I was alone there. > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Yuelin Zhang > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Marco, > > > > > > I will attend office hour for code review and label bot deployment > > process. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cathy > > > > > > Marco de Abreu 于2018年8月7日 > > 周二06:01写道： > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I'd like to send out a quick reminder for todays office hours: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > > > MXNet+Berlin+Office+Hours > > > > > > > > Please don't forget to have a thread on dev@ before attending. > > > > > > > > The office hour will be held by myself. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > >
