Could we actually just define a mechanism so the libs could register their
ops at runtime? No linking required?
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018, 8:36 PM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
> 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 <
> christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > share such operators across projects. This creates a perverse incentive
> > 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>
> > wrote:
> > Hello,
> > we recently had a few cases in which it has been attempted to add new
> > functionality to old branches because a customer of somebodys
> > requested it and was unable to switch to the latest release or that
> > certain
> > 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
> > backwards-compatible
> > 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
> > either stick to it or drop it entirely - exceptions to SemVer are
> > usually
> > discouraged. While I see that adding functionality might be a minor
> > thing,
> > 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;
> > considering that whoever supports that customer on their $DAY_JOB can
> > assist them at creating a fork and cherrypicking that feature. But I
> > don't
> > see much reason why we're running against best pracitices. One
> > important
> > thing to note here is that we're not maintaining CI on old branches
> > neither are we making patch releases - so what do these users do?
> > Compile
> > off a stale development branch with unvalidated changes?
> > In my opinion this whole topic is just causing trouble and
> > fragementation
> > on our end. If a features doesn't make it into the release (for
> > whatever
> > reason), so be it. But I think we should discuss this topic and
> > emphasize a
> > no-exceptions-rule to SemVer.
> > Best regards,
> > Marco