This is a good point. What additional blockers would there be for linking
against a user provided library with custom operators?
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Barber, Christopher <
> To avoid this kind of problem, you really need to support features that
> allow MXNet to be extended without having to resort to forking. There is
> currently no way to add C++ custom operators without forking, and no way to
> share such operators across projects. This creates a perverse incentive to
> try to get changes that may not belong into the main product.
> On 3/5/18, 6:26 PM, "Marco de Abreu" <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com>
> we recently had a few cases in which it has been attempted to add new
> functionality to old branches because a customer of somebodys $DAY_JOB
> requested it and was unable to switch to the latest release or that
> feature did not make it into the release. This lead to quite a lot of
> discussions and there was no clear standing within the community.
> Just to cite semantic versioning:
> 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
> 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a
> manner, and
> 3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
> We as a community agreed on following this system and I think we should
> either stick to it or drop it entirely - exceptions to SemVer are
> discouraged. While I see that adding functionality might be a minor
> I don't think that we should educate our users into expecting us to
> backport new features. The development happening on the Apache MXNet
> repository should not be influenced by something like this; especially
> considering that whoever supports that customer on their $DAY_JOB can
> assist them at creating a fork and cherrypicking that feature. But I
> see much reason why we're running against best pracitices. One
> thing to note here is that we're not maintaining CI on old branches and
> neither are we making patch releases - so what do these users do?
> off a stale development branch with unvalidated changes?
> In my opinion this whole topic is just causing trouble and
> on our end. If a features doesn't make it into the release (for
> reason), so be it. But I think we should discuss this topic and
> emphasize a
> no-exceptions-rule to SemVer.
> Best regards,