Re: [DISCUSS] 1.5.0 Release Plan

Hi folks, Here I may have a release blocker for 1.5.0 about implementation of dynamic shape mechanism, which somehow conflicts with Gluon's deferred initialization [1]. [1] https://github.com/dmlc/gluon-nlp/issues/706 On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:09 PM Anirudh Subramanian wrote: > Hi Lai, > >

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

Hi Zach, Thank you for raising these points! I am happy to offer more reading materials about this topic. *SSA vs ANF.* ANF and SSA are essentially the same thing [1]. *AD in Relay.* Relay is able to do AD through not only control flow, but also various data structures and higher-order functjon

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

This is a good point. I believe the main question here is not SSA vs others, but more about CFG vs structured control flow. SSA is generally equivalent to ANF or dataflow if you ignore the Phi and CFG blocks. The current relay IR makes use of more structured control flow so it does not have an

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

Hi Thanks for all the materials and keypoints raised. The discussion has many ramifications, I will think about them and research them very carefully before replying further. Please also don't quickly dismiss the points I have raised and reduce them to typed vs untyped or pedantic C++ comments,

Re: Python2 End of Life

+1 Standardizing on Python 3 will make things easier for both MXNet devs as well as users. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:49 PM sandeep krishnamurthy < sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 Thanks for bringing this up Zach. > Can we include this intent to deprecate support for Python 2, in the >

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

Hi Anirudh, Naveen, Thank you so much for the gentle remainder! I am not a native speaker and have resulted in the mistake. I would love to say sincere sorry to Pedro. Pedro is working really hard for growing our community and improving our code base. I sincerely apologize for what I have said

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.5.0 Release Plan

Hi Lai, >From the discussion I had with Nvidia offline they are targeting on pushing the required changes today. Since this is important feature for the release, if this gets delayed and cannot be merged by 05/17/2019, the code freeze date may need to be changed. Anirudh On Wed, May 15, 2019

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

I would like to raise another option to get back on the topic of changing the Operator graph structure. On the page discussing Relay IR [1], it discusses mainly the difference between a data flow graph like we use now and A-normal [2] which is used in some functional compilers. Is there a reason

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

Being dismissive and condescending has been exactly what is plaguing this project. I agree the last paragraph sounds very condescending and very dismissive and it breaks many code of conducts listed. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:31 AM Anirudh Subramanian wrote: > Hi Junru, > > Overall, I

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

Hi Junru, Overall, I appreciate the points you made about the proposal. Having said that, I would like to remind the Apache Code of Conduct : https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct. "Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly and patient". I find your tone condescending. Clearly you

Re: Python2 End of Life

The website I listed earlier (https://python3statement.org/) is backed by a git repository ( https://github.com/python3statement/python3statement.github.io) so that projects can open a PR to add themselves to the list. Beyond that, they also have a very nice timeline that projects can add

Re: TensorRT blocker

Hey, Yup - I've @'ed you to the fix PR, would be great to get your 2c there just to be sure it's all good. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14960 Cheers, Per On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:14 PM Sunderland, Kellen wrote: > Looks like it's merged. Can I help with a fix Per? > > On

Re: TensorRT blocker

Looks like it's merged. Can I help with a fix Per? On May 15, 2019 3:00 AM, Per da Silva wrote: Hi everyone, Could a committer please merge this PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14958 It disables the TensorRT steps to unblock CI while a fix is being worked on. Cheers, Per

TensorRT blocker

Hi everyone, Could a committer please merge this PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14958 It disables the TensorRT steps to unblock CI while a fix is being worked on. Cheers, Per

Re: Python2 End of Life

+1 I'd like to point out that one of our dependencies, scikit, already dropped support for python 2. If more dependencies drop support before 1.1.20, we might start running into further issues like we already did. As part of that decision, I'd propose to see what the detailed timelines of our

RE: [DISCUSS] 1.5.0 Release Plan

Hi dev, We see there are several github issues [1][2][3][4] about mxnet windows build experience. The team is working intensively [5][6][7] on that to fix some problems of MKL-DNN build on windows. We hope these fixes can catch the code freeze and finally enter the 1.5.0 release. The PR

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

Hi Pedro, I really appreciate that a diligent and talented engineer eagerly wants to improve our system, and am very thankful that you have done so much for our community. However, I do want to mention some points that I believe I should mention. While I agree with Tianqi that every design has

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.5.0 Release Plan

Hi Anirudh, I see there was an offline disucssion and I have updated the AMP feature and your project on the release tracker ,