This was discussed in the past and so far, it seems possible for Unix builds, although it’s going to be messy since the compile would generally need access to all a large portion of the headers in the source tree, since the “things needed to create your own op” aren’t necessarily all contained in the include/mxnet directory.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:40 AM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> > wrote: > > > 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 > > 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> > > > 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 > > $DAY_JOB > > > 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 > > should > > > 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; > > especially > > > 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 > > and > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >