Requesting Slack Access

2020-05-29 Thread Bishal Saha
I did sent an email but didn’t get any response. Can anyone help me!

Re: [Lazy consensus] Removal of all repository.apache.org mxnet artifacts (and their mirrored maven central counterparts)

2020-05-29 Thread Zach Kimberg
If we replace the official CPU build, won't there still be new dependencies so it is not even guaranteed to work depending on whether the user has the dependencies (e.g. libgfortran) installed? I think there is also a performance degradation if we remove mkl. But, we could still have a third-party

Re: add me to the slack group

2020-05-29 Thread Chaitanya Bapat
Hello Bishal I've sent you an invite to the Slack channel. Welcome to the MXNet community! Let us know if you need any help. Thanks, Chai On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 22:33, Bishal Saha wrote: > The forms are usefull but slack gives much more power and helps to discuss > projects :) > -- *Chaita

Re: Requesting slack access

2020-05-29 Thread Chaitanya Bapat
Hey Alex, Welcome to the MXNet community! I can see Leo and Joshua jump in to help with the issue. Hope we get to the end of this and resolve your issue. Let us know if you need any other help as well. Thanks Chai On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 14:17, Alex Sisu wrote: > Hey guys, > > I want to get ac

Re: [Lazy consensus] Removal of all repository.apache.org mxnet artifacts (and their mirrored maven central counterparts)

2020-05-29 Thread Carin Meier
Thanks. I understand now. If all the current jars are not compliant, then they should be removed. I also don't like the idea of "replacing" a jar on maven with another jar. It sounds like we can consider publishing cpu jars only going forward for a new release. - Carin On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:3

Re: [Lazy consensus] Removal of all repository.apache.org mxnet artifacts (and their mirrored maven central counterparts)

2020-05-29 Thread Lausen, Leonard
On Fri, 2020-05-29 at 12:15 -0400, Carin Meier wrote: > > Going forward - we with future releases, we can have all users build their > own packages, just for the existing ones that are compliant on maven. > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:14 PM Carin Meier wrote: > > > Leonard, > > > > Is this #2

Re: undefined behavior in tensor.h

2020-05-29 Thread Skalicky, Sam
Hi Oliver, MShadow was a 3rd party component, but since its deprecation it was donated to the MXNet community and the source code is now only in the MXNet github repo (not a true 3rd party component anymore). Feel free to open a PR with a fix. Thanks! Sam On 5/29/20, 9:46 AM, "Oliver Kowalke"

undefined behavior in tensor.h

2020-05-29 Thread Oliver Kowalke
Hi, code in mshadow/mshadow/tensor.h might cause UB. Member function Shape::operator[](int idx) does not check for array boundaries. GCC causes a warning (error with -Werror). How to deal with it? Is it accepted to patch 3rdpart components? A solution is to throw an exception (costs runtime perform

Re: [Lazy consensus] Removal of all repository.apache.org mxnet artifacts (and their mirrored maven central counterparts)

2020-05-29 Thread Carin Meier
Going forward - we with future releases, we can have all users build their own packages, just for the existing ones that are compliant on maven. On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:14 PM Carin Meier wrote: > Leonard, > > Is this #2 Option still on the table? > > 2) Ask the Infra team to delete all MXNet

Re: [Lazy consensus] Removal of all repository.apache.org mxnet artifacts (and their mirrored maven central counterparts)

2020-05-29 Thread Carin Meier
Leonard, Is this #2 Option still on the table? 2) Ask the Infra team to delete all MXNet GPU releases on > repository.apache.org and provide replacement releases without libgfortran.so > and other potentially Category-X files (I found libmkl_ml.so in one of the > JARs..) It seems like it would