1. I'm afraid we got quite a lot of APIs, especially considering the various Interface languages we support. It would be quite hard and error prone to verify this. 2. I'm not looking into all PRs, but I can't recall that much attention is being paid to this fact. I only remember there was a PR from Pedro regarding changing the pointer type, but I can't recall the outcome. 3. I've spoken to quite a few people recently and I noticed that not everyone is subscribed to this email lists. Unfortunately, this approach would also be error prone. 4. I'm not aware of many tests in that area. There is some integration for the caffee converter and a very small nightly job that trains on the latest version and runs inference on the previous version, but I dont know which operators are covered. In general I would say that we don't have enough integration test coverage, but I'd be happy to be told otherwise.
I'd say they are not sufficient for us to trust. -Marco Am 25.01.2018 6:42 vorm. schrieb "kellen sunderland" < [email protected]>: By my count we have four mechanisms in place to verify no breaking API changes have taken place: 1) Have the important public api's changed? This can be verified in by inspecting git history of important interfaces. 2) Has anyone indicated in a PR that their change was a breaking change (reviewers should be aware if so). 3) Email the dev list and ask specifically if there have been breaking changes done, it seems scala is the only breaking change that I've seen. 4) Integration tests from several languages that run both per PR and nightly. If breaking changes happen ideally these should catch them provided we have enough coverage. If they've been updated to match a breaking change this should also be apparent to reviewers. Of course even with these mechanisms in place breaking changes can slip through. I think this is going to be tough to prevent, especially with the degree of subrepos we have. Would you disagree that these mechanisms exist, or are you of the opinion that they just aren't sufficient for us to trust? On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Marco de Abreu < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kellen, > > The reason I proposed a minor release is the matter of the fact that we do > not know if we have no breaking changes. We currently have no mechanism in > place to validate this fact and while you are right that this will probably > result in a slower adoption rate, I'm more afraid about users just > upgrading with the expectancy that no API changes were introduced, while it > may actually has happened. > > As long as we got no mechanism in place to validate the preconditions to > make this a patch release, we shouldn't act like we guarantee it. > > -Marco > > Am 25.01.2018 2:01 vorm. schrieb "kellen sunderland" < > [email protected]>: > > > -.5 (non-binding) to releasing as a minor release. If we don't have any > > breaking API changes, and we haven't added any major features I would > tend > > to release this as a patch release. The reason being that organizations > > and users will know that they can apply this release without making major > > changes to their dependencies. It also helps set expectations around the > > degree of regression testing you'd expect to do on a release (typically > > patch releases would require less testing). For that reason if we > release > > as a patch release I think we could expect better adoption rates in the > > community and within large tech orgs. If we release as a minor release > we > > should expect that many customers may take a long time to update, and as > a > > community we will be forced to provide support for bugs which have > already > > been fixed. > > > > +1 (non-binding) In terms of branching I'd agree that we should apply > most > > of the fixes to the previous release branch and build from there. Happy > to > > help with this if needed. > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Nan Zhu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1 and suggest consolidating all maintenance releases under the same > > > major.minor version into a single branch > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Meghna Baijal < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I agree. If the release candidate is being cut from the master > branch, > > it > > > > should be considered a minor release. > > > > > > > > Anyway the effort involved in the release process is exactly the same > > in > > > > either case. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Meghna > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2018 8:56 PM, "Marco de Abreu" < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
