[ANNOUNCE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0

2020-09-14 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Dear all, The Apache MXNet (incubating) community is happy to announce Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0! Apache MXNet (incubating) is a deep learning framework designed for both efficiency and flexibility. It allows you to mix symbolic and imperative programming to maximize

[RESULTS] [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1

2020-08-23 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Dear Community, The voting for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.7.0.rc1 has passed with 5 +1 votes (3 binding) and no 0 or -1 votes. +1 votes: * Michael Wall / binding * Jason Dai / binding * Tianqi Chen / binding * Sheng Zha * Xingjian Shi Vote thread can be found at:

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1

2020-08-19 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Michael Wall wrote: > Thanks for the follow up Ciyong. You are right, -vv did not enable > verbose. If I had used -VV (with capital V's) I would have gotten > output. > > Good luck on the vote. > > Mike > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:43 AM Chen, Ciyong > wrote: >

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1

2020-08-18 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Hi Michael, Thank you for your time to review and vote. Regarding your questions: > - Does anything with mshadow need to change now that it has passed clearance. From source code release perspective, I don't think there's anything we need to change as mshadow is already in the code base with

RE: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1

2020-08-17 Thread Chen, Ciyong
] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1 +1 carried from vote on dev@ [1]. -sz [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r28fbcad28a0a29c1b40edf4d3898d09946801b663cf103ad59a9bce2%40%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E On 2020/08/11 05:21:39, "Chen, Ciyong" wrote: > Thank you

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1

2020-08-10 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Thank you Sheng and all for removing the blocker for the release. Dear Community, As the vote is resumed, please take your time to verify and vote on the upcoming release for Apache MXNet(incubating). I copied the content from the original vote mail for your reference. This is a call for a

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1

2020-07-26 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Hi Justin, Thanks for your valuable inputs, then I will hold on the current rc1 release and continue the rest of release process (vote on general) when the issues are addressed. Thanks, Ciyong -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 8:18 AM To:

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1

2020-07-26 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Hi Justin, Thanks for your time to review and vote on this release. It seems that most of the concerns are branding/trademark/legal issues from those third-party projects which relies on MXNet and the AWS marketplace (or MXNet's downstream projects), which could be tracked separately and

[VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1

2020-07-25 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Dear community, This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.7.0, release candidate 1. Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release. Vote thread:

RE: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party work guidance

2020-06-24 Thread Chen, Ciyong
to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party work guidance Hi Ciyong, the consensus passed, so we should proceed according to the consensus. Thank you Leonard On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 09:04 +, Chen, Ciyong wrote

RE: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party work guidance

2020-06-23 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Hi all, I'm wondering if there's any further concerns for this "72 hours lazy consensus"? Shall we continue with the option of "I believe PPMC would prefer to put the ASF header on top of the file (ie. 2 headers)" Thanks, -Ciyong -Original Message- From: Leonard Lausen Sent:

RE: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party work guidance

2020-06-16 Thread Chen, Ciyong
anks! >1) Numpy License Headers Only > 2) Apache Header with Numpy License Header (keep the license header as is now) Best Regards, -Ciyong From: Bob Paulin Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 11:38 PM To: d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; Chen, Ciyong ; lau...@apache.org; d...@mxnet.apache.org; general

RE: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party work guidance

2020-06-15 Thread Chen, Ciyong
Hi Bob, Leonard, Thanks for the elaboration/guideline on the dual license issue. May I have the conclusion as below based on Bob’s direction/suggestion: * If there’s no any different opinion or objection, keep either origin Numpy license or ASF license but not dual, which depends on how