Are there any particular reasons why we are classifying this release as patch instead of minor release? As far as I know, we don't have any tests in place to determine API changes and thus can't guarantee that this is an actual patch release. Considering the fact that PRs have been merged without having semantic versioning in place, this could be quite risky.
Instead, I'd rather propose to make a minor release 1.1 instead of patch release 1.0.1. -Marco Am 24.01.2018 7:20 nachm. schrieb "Zha, Sheng" <[email protected]>: > There’s an experimental API for text data indexing and embedding in > mx.contrib.text. > > - Sent by my thumb > > > On Jan 24, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Chris Olivier <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > the profiling PR contains a small breaking change, but i don’t think it’s > > going into 1.0.1 > > > >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:48 PM Haibin Lin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> Since the plan was to cut a branch from the master branch, the code will > >> include changes other than the bug fix PRs noted in the release note. Is > >> anyone aware of any API changes in the current MXNet master branch? In > >> particular, are there backward incompatible ones? > >> > >> Best, > >> Haibin > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Haibin Lin <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Sheng, > >>> > >>> 1. I've been following the discussion on the branching & versioning > >>> thread. Features like MKLDNN integration should not go to patch release > >>> 1.0.1, and it's risky to merge large PRs right before the release. I've > >>> removed the MKLDNN section from the release note. https://cwiki.apache > . > >>> org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+ > >>> 1.0.1+Release+Notes > >>> > >>> 2. I agree that we should aim for better test coverage & stable CI, and > >>> get those disabled/flaky tests fixed eventually. Fixing these requires > >>> efforts from the community and I strongly encourage contributors to > help. > >>> Removing the corresponding feature from the release doesn't sound > >> practical > >>> since users might be already using some of those. I suggest that we > keep > >>> track of these tests on Apache Wiki and make sure they are addressed > for > >>> the release after 1.0.1. > >>> > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> In terms of the current status for this release, all critical bug fixes > >>> are merged (to the best of my knowledge) and we have made good progress > >>> fixing license issues. As Meghna mentioned, a list of open questions > >>> regarding license is at > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/ > >>> MXNet+Source+Licenses section D - it would be great if we can get more > >>> clarification/help/feedback from Apache mentors. > >>> > >>> I suggest that we shoot for code freeze for 1.0.1 rc0 this Wednesday. > >> Does > >>> anyone have concern or objection on this? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Haibin > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Steffen Rochel < > [email protected] > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Sheng - > >>>> 1. branch usage and versioning - lets converge our discussion and > >> document > >>>> the agreement on wiki. I started a draft summarizing my understanding > of > >>>> the proposal at > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+ > >>>> Versioning+and+Branching. > >>>> Lets work together to refine and clarify the draft, so we have clarity > >>>> going forward. I'm inviting everyone to contribute to this discussion. > >>>> As MKLDNN integration is not ready yet and we want to release all the > >> good > >>>> improvements including updates in tutorials and documentation I > suggest > >> we > >>>> move forward with the release asap. As we don't have major features or > >>>> non-compatible API changes (to best of my knowledge) I think it is > >>>> appropriate to label the release as 1.0.1. > >>>> Note: This label indicates a patch release. Patch releases should be > >>>> created from the related release branch. As we didn't plan for it and > to > >>>> minimize overhead I suggest we make a one time exception to cut the > >> 1.0.1 > >>>> release from master branch and clearly communicate in release notes. > >> Going > >>>> forward we should follow the methodology for versioning and branching > to > >>>> whatever we agree on. > >>>> 2. Disabled tests: I agree with your concerns that we had to disable > 13 > >>>> tests due to non-deterministic behavior (see issues > >>>> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/labels/Flaky>). I'm > calling > >> on > >>>> all contributors to help to resolve the non-deterministic behavior, so > >> we > >>>> can improve our test coverage. As we discussed offline, lets tests > >>>> manually > >>>> short term, document the known issue in the release notes and > prioritize > >>>> efforts post 1.0.1 release. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Steffen > >>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:05 PM Sheng Zha <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Haibin, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for leading this. I suggest that we hold onto this release > >> until > >>>> we > >>>>> have clarity on the following items. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. branch usage and versioning > >>>>> Given that we are past 1.0 and we're changing APIs, I'd like to > >> suggest > >>>>> that we first agree on how > >>>>> versioning works in mxnet. If we follow semantic versioning, it would > >>>>> suggest that features like > >>>>> MKL-DNN should go at least into 1.1 (minor version change) instead of > >>>>> 1.0.1 (patch release). > >>>>> Also, assuming that new release will come from a new forked branch, I > >>>>> suggest that we clarify on how to > >>>>> name the branches too. > >>>>> You can find relevant thread at > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c52f8353f63c1e63b2646ec > >>>> 3b08d9a8180a1381787d777b41b8ac69f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. disabled tests > >>>>> For the purpose of stabilizing test automation system, many tests > were > >>>>> disabled. In order to avoid > >>>>> releasing untested features, we should mitigate the situation of > >> having > >>>>> disabled tests. > >>>>> That means we can fix the tests before the release, or remove the > >>>>> corresponding feature from release > >>>>> (might be hard to do, e.g. for optimizer). Otherwise, we must > >>>> collectively > >>>>> decide that a feature is > >>>>> OK to release without tests. > >>>>> The thread on this topic can be found at > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/addab1937bfcf09b5dfa15c > >>>> 1149ddcebd084f1c4bf4e10a73770fb35@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E > >>>>> > >>>>> We can proceed on the release with more confidence once we have > >> clarity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> -sz > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 2018-01-10 15:33, Haibin Lin <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> I am starting the process to prepare for MXNET 1.0.1 release. I have > >>>>>> drafted release notes > >>>>>> (* > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+ > >>>> MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0.1+Release+Notes > >>>>>> < > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+ > >>>> MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0.1+Release+Notes > >>>>>> *) > >>>>>> to cover the tasks under this release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A release candidate will be cut on Monday 22nd Jan, 2018 and voting > >>>> will > >>>>>> commence from then till Thursday 25th Jan, 2018. If you have any > >>>>> additional > >>>>>> features in progress and would like to include it in this release, > >>>> please > >>>>>> assure they have been merged by Thursday 18th Jan, 2018 with comment > >>>> so I > >>>>>> may update the release notes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Haibin > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> >
