[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 659

Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/659/

Re: [Important] Please Help make the Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0 Release Notes Better!

Thank you Meghna Added notes about ARM & Nvidia Jetson support (beta) to the document. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Meghna Baijal wrote: > Apologies. Done. > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Chris Olivier > wrote: > >> No write access :(

Re: 3rdparty packages as submodules

We could also add gtest as well for example. I would like to point out that is quite cumbersome to get your code tested and ready before sending a PR, this includes installing cpplint, pylint, gtest… Installing gtest and bootstrapping it is not completely trivial. Kind regards. On Mon, Nov

Re: [RFQ] Deprecate amalgamation

I like the idea of amalgamation, I have used it in SQLite as it makes very easy to just drop one header file and one source file in another project to use the library. But SQLite is often used as a library embedded in platforms / other libraries. What's the use case of amalgamation in MXNet when

Re: Protected master needs to be turned off

-0.5 (non-binding). I would propose that if there are pieces of CI that are slowing down development (and I think we can all agree that there are) that we should strip out these problematic CI pieces and open issues for them. We can then assign issues to people and evaluate what should be done

Re: [RFQ] Deprecate amalgamation

We could resort to a middle ground. Instead of having an amalgamation script that generates a single file, simply have a file that includes everything and compiles that one. Which should also work. The javascript port can likely be superseded with some form of support in nnvm compiler, which

Re: [RFQ] Deprecate amalgamation

What about the Web/Node inference build MXnet JS (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/amalgamation#javascript )? Best, Aran On 11/20/17, 2:47 PM, "Pedro Larroy" wrote: Hi all Given that we have working builds for ARM, Android, TX2

Re: [RFQ] Deprecate amalgamation

Is amalgamation was used for the javascript port? On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Pedro Larroy wrote: > Hi all > > Given that we have working builds for ARM, Android, TX2 and the main > architectures, and after considering how amalgamation is done. I would > like

[RFQ] Deprecate amalgamation

Hi all Given that we have working builds for ARM, Android, TX2 and the main architectures, and after considering how amalgamation is done. I would like to propose that we deprecate and remove amalgamation. I don't think the cost of maintaining this feature and how it's done justifies the ROI,

Re: Protected master needs to be turned off

Small update regarding the status of the new CI: We've been able to get ubuntu builds and tests up and running. I’ve received requests to provide exact times for all important stages of the CI. As the first runs have been executed successfully, I’ll provide you with some data. This will give you

Re: [Important] Please Help make the Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0 Release Notes Better!

Apologies. Done. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > No write access :( > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Meghna Baijal > > wrote: > > > Hello All, > > As you know I am currently working on finalizing the Release

Re: [Important] Please Help make the Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0 Release Notes Better!

No write access :( On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Meghna Baijal wrote: > Hello All, > As you know I am currently working on finalizing the Release Candidate for > Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0 Release. Anyone who has contributed to this > release, could you please

Re: Protected master needs to be turned off

+1 until new CI is implemented. Tianqi On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Eric Xie wrote: > A lot of people seems to be confused, so let's clarify the separation of > roles/responsibilities: > > 1. The committers that merge code are responsible for code quality and > tests

Re: 3rdparty packages as submodules

I'm fine with a 3rdparty folder. Not sure about apache legal. On 2017-11-17 10:25, Chris Olivier wrote: > All, > > I often find it desirable to have a method for 3rdparty packages to be > included (possibly optionally) in a 3rdparty directory. We do this with > 'cub'

Re: Protected master needs to be turned off

-1 (non binding) While I agree that the protected master is slowing development but it is also helping identify problematic tests. If we don't do this now, the same issues will exist on the new CI. On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hello, >

Re: Protected master needs to be turned off

-1 for the reasons, Gautam and Marco have pointed out. On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Gautam wrote: > -1 > > Please see inline. > > On Nov 19, 2017 12:51 PM, "Eric Xie" wrote: > > Hi all, > I'm starting this thread to vote on turning off protected

Re: AWS contributing ONNX-MXNet

We modified the blog post and acknowledged Zhi's contributions. It reads now: "*Special thanks to the dmlc/nnvm community and Zhi Zhang, whose ONNX code was used as a reference for this implementation."* Regards, Steffen On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:36 AM Tianqi Chen