Re: Support for 'pip install SystemML'

[Berthold Reinwald]

this will definitely help with the python community.

Regards,
Berthold Reinwald
IBM Almaden Research Center
office: (408) 927 2208; T/L: 457 2208
e-mail: reinw...@us.ibm.com



From:   Luciano Resende 
To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
Date:   08/25/2016 10:30 PM
Subject:Re: Support for 'pip install SystemML'



On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Niketan Pansare  
wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
> As part of the PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/197, 
I
> have created a setup.py and also uploaded a preview version of the 
SystemML
> Python package on PyPI (If interested, you can try it by following the
> instructions given in
> 
http://niketanpansare.github.io/incubator-systemml/beginners-guide-python#
> install-systemml
> ). This package packs the content of our distribution (license, notice,
> readme, SystemML.jar and algorithms) along with the python files and is
> also flagged with Apache 2.0 license in setup.py.
>

Very good addition to SystemML.

Note that, putting SystemML artifacts into PyPI is similar to putting
SystemML artifacts into a maven repository and should only be done
officially when a release is done, or periodically as dev, which I believe
is similar to the concept of SNAPSHOTS in maven (see
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/toree).


-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: Support for 'pip install SystemML'

[Luciano Resende]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Niketan Pansare  wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
> As part of the PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/197, I
> have created a setup.py and also uploaded a preview version of the SystemML
> Python package on PyPI (If interested, you can try it by following the
> instructions given in
> http://niketanpansare.github.io/incubator-systemml/beginners-guide-python#
> install-systemml
> ). This package packs the content of our distribution (license, notice,
> readme, SystemML.jar and algorithms) along with the python files and is
> also flagged with Apache 2.0 license in setup.py.
>

Very good addition to SystemML.

Note that, putting SystemML artifacts into PyPI is similar to putting
SystemML artifacts into a maven repository and should only be done
officially when a release is done, or periodically as dev, which I believe
is similar to the concept of SNAPSHOTS in maven (see
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/toree).


-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Support for 'pip install SystemML'

[Niketan Pansare]

Hi all,

As part of the PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/197, I
have created a setup.py and also uploaded a preview version of the SystemML
Python package on PyPI (If interested, you can try it by following the
instructions given in
http://niketanpansare.github.io/incubator-systemml/beginners-guide-python#install-systemml
). This package packs the content of our distribution (license, notice,
readme, SystemML.jar and algorithms) along with the python files and is
also flagged with Apache 2.0 license in setup.py.

Wrt usage of our python code (namely mlcontext, mllearn, matrix wrapper and
embedded DSL), we have three options:
1. Ask users to clone the git repo and copy the src/main/python directory
to use SystemML from pyspark. For the java version, the user can then
download the corresponding release or build SystemML from the source.
2. Only publish the python package along with maven artifact.
3. Publish python package along with maven artifact and also upload it to
PyPI.

Note: The code is not yet merged in the trunk. Depending on the community
opinion and only after appropriate approvals, we will go ahead with one of
the above options.

Thanks,

Niketan Pansare
IBM Almaden Research Center
E-mail: npansar At us.ibm.com
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-npansar

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0

[Sourav Mazumder]

+1

Regards,
Sourav 

> On ২৫ আগস্ট, ২০১৬, at ৫:৪১ অপরাহ্ণ, Niketan Pansare  
> wrote:
> 
> +1 for calling next release as 1.0.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Niketan Pansare
> IBM Almaden Research Center
> E-mail: npansar At us.ibm.com
> http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-npansar
> 
> Deron Eriksson ---08/25/2016 05:24:31 PM---+1 Deron
> 
> From: Deron Eriksson 
> To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
> Date: 08/25/2016 05:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Deron
> 
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Luciano Resende 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Deron Eriksson 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Luciano,
> > >
> > > Yes, I like the idea of the next release being SystemML 1.0. Given the
> > > significance of the version, it would be a good idea to not rush the
> > > release so that we can make this a truly great release.
> > >
> > > Deron
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I am not suggesting to rush a release, just that we would not call 0.11 and
> > 1.0. The time frame is based on when we are ready.
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >
> 
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0

[Niketan Pansare]

+1 for calling next release as 1.0.

Thanks,

Niketan Pansare
IBM Almaden Research Center
E-mail: npansar At us.ibm.com
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-npansar



From:   Deron Eriksson 
To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
Date:   08/25/2016 05:24 PM
Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0



+1

Deron

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Luciano Resende 
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Deron Eriksson 
> wrote:
>
> > Luciano,
> >
> > Yes, I like the idea of the next release being SystemML 1.0. Given the
> > significance of the version, it would be a good idea to not rush the
> > release so that we can make this a truly great release.
> >
> > Deron
> >
> >
> >
> I am not suggesting to rush a release, just that we would not call 0.11
and
> 1.0. The time frame is based on when we are ready.
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0

[Deron Eriksson]

+1

Deron

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Luciano Resende 
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Deron Eriksson 
> wrote:
>
> > Luciano,
> >
> > Yes, I like the idea of the next release being SystemML 1.0. Given the
> > significance of the version, it would be a good idea to not rush the
> > release so that we can make this a truly great release.
> >
> > Deron
> >
> >
> >
> I am not suggesting to rush a release, just that we would not call 0.11 and
> 1.0. The time frame is based on when we are ready.
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0

[Luciano Resende]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Deron Eriksson 
wrote:

> Luciano,
>
> Yes, I like the idea of the next release being SystemML 1.0. Given the
> significance of the version, it would be a good idea to not rush the
> release so that we can make this a truly great release.
>
> Deron
>
>
>
I am not suggesting to rush a release, just that we would not call 0.11 and
1.0. The time frame is based on when we are ready.

-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0

[Deron Eriksson]

Luciano,

Yes, I like the idea of the next release being SystemML 1.0. Given the
significance of the version, it would be a good idea to not rush the
release so that we can make this a truly great release.

Deron


On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Luciano Resende 
wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Matthias Boehm 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm still not fully convinced that we need to drop Spark 1.x support,
> > instead of supporting both 1.x and 2.x. I would appreciate if we could
> > first conclude the discussion around migrating to Spark 2.0.
> >
> > Furthermore, I think that creating a dependency to Spark versioning would
> > unnecessarily complicate our own release process. I would rather use
> major
> > releases as an opportunity to cleanup APIs and drop certain language
> > features. And this is unlikely to coincide with Spark's releases. From my
> > perspective it would be even more confusing for a user to release a major
> > version for a relatively minor change as support for a new Spark version.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matthias
> >
> >
> I will leave the discussion about Spark 1.x and 2.x for the original
> thread.
>
> Trying to bring the topic back to the original subject, are we in consensus
> that we could call the next release it SystemML 1.0 ?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0

[Berthold Reinwald]

Another consideration to keep in mind is other backends - used or not - 
such as MR, GPU, library, possibly Flink, ...

Regards,
Berthold Reinwald
IBM Almaden Research Center
office: (408) 927 2208; T/L: 457 2208
e-mail: reinw...@us.ibm.com



From:   Matthias Boehm/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS
To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
Date:   08/25/2016 10:59 AM
Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0



I'm still not fully convinced that we need to drop Spark 1.x support, 
instead of supporting both 1.x and 2.x. I would appreciate if we could 
first conclude the discussion around migrating to Spark 2.0. 

Furthermore, I think that creating a dependency to Spark versioning would 
unnecessarily complicate our own release process. I would rather use major 
releases as an opportunity to cleanup APIs and drop certain language 
features. And this is unlikely to coincide with Spark's releases. From my 
perspective it would be even more confusing for a user to release a major 
version for a relatively minor change as support for a new Spark version. 

Regards,
Matthias


Luciano Resende ---08/25/2016 07:15:36 PM---On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:11 
PM,  wrote: > Yes I'm also in favor of moving t

From: Luciano Resende 
To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
Date: 08/25/2016 07:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0



On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:11 PM,  wrote:

> Yes I'm also in favor of moving to a 1.0 version for our upcoming 
release
> targeting the Spark 1.x series. Since we'll also be subsequently 
releasing
> a version targeting the Spark 2.x series, I would also like to suggest 
that
> we name that version 2.0. This version naming scheme would allow us to
> easily associate a SystemML version with the Spark series that it 
targets,
> thus reducing confusion for a user. Rather than view a 2.0 version as a
> successor to 1.0, let's view it instead as simply a naming scheme that
> corresponds to the targeted version of Spark.
>
> So, 1.0 would be our upcoming release targeting Spark 1.x, and 2.0 would
> be our upcoming release targeting Spark 2.x.
>
>
+ 1



-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/