Ok, so why don’t we have two votes? 1) change namespace is a separate vote since it’s a code change and has different voting rules (can be vetoed)
2) whether to disconnect non-C-API versioning from C-API versioning and have parallel versioning of all non-C APIs (process rule, so majority, I think is the rule, right?) -Chris On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 8:46 AM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, the namespace should have been 'org.apache.mxnet' with the artifact > as 'mxnet-incubating'. > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 4:44 PM, kellen sunderland < > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > YiZhi, In general I agree that your points and examples are the ideal > > case, but in the MXNet situation there are some trade-offs we have to > > make. Let me try to specifically answer your points: > > > > "Do you mean we have different version for 'ml.dmlc' namespace and > > 'org.apache' namespace?" > > No I am not trying to saying that. I believe Marco, Naveen and I are all > > proposing we use a single org.apache.incubating.mxnet namespace moving > > forward, which would require a major version change to our product API > > under our current versioning scheme. Marco and I are proposing we apply > > this MV change _only_ to the scala package's API. > > > > "How to tell which Scala API version works with which MXNet core version? > > By document?" > > Yes users will be able to tell via the website, release docs, maven > > package information, pom file, etc. > > > > "How many users will read the whole document and carefully pair the > > version id before they run into a strange error and give up?" > > They won't get a strange error, assuming we're talking about Scala users > > who are upgrading from a package with the same namespace they will rely > on > > the package manager to give them an update which should be painless. > > > > Secondly software developers understand that packages, not products, have > > versions. They know that these versions are used to communicate when > APIs > > are broken. There's examples of Apache packages doing this for packages > > that include multiple interfaces, for example first-party modules > packaged > > with the HTTP server, or log4j's language bindings (arguably quite > similar > > to what Naveen is doing). > > > > While we can debate the right way to version packages, I think there's a > > clear community decision here to get Naveen unblocked: > > > > (1) We continue semantically versioning across all APIs, meaning that > this > > change would get released with MXNet 2.*. > > (2) You version package interfaces semantically and have a compatible > > version mapping. > > (3) Status quo, we continue to release a Scala package as-is, breaking > > apache guidelines for artifact generation. > > (4) We rely on the namespace change itself to communicate a change in the > > interface. We don't consider this a major change. > > > > My (non-binding) preference would be for option 2. > > > > -Kellen > > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> Changing namespaces is one example of a required major version change, > but > >> there are more reasons like general refactoring or some deprecated APIs > >> just being hard to maintain. Things like these happen quite frequently > and > >> it's a problem every software project has to face and find a solution > for. > >> > >> Regarding ' How to tell which Scala API version works with which MXNet > >> core > >> version?': We could just bundle MXNet with the released API package as > we > >> do right now, but we would give each interface it's own version and > >> publish > >> them on their distribution platforms accordingly. Just an example: > >> >Scala-Package -> MXNet-Version > >> >> 1.0 -> 1.0 > >> >> 1.1 -> 1.1 > >> >> 2.0 -> 1.2 > >> >> 2.1 -> 1.3 > >> >> 3.0 -> 2.0 > >> > >> > R-Package -> MXNet-Version > >> >> 1.0 -> 1.0 > >> >> 2.0 -> 1.1 > >> >> 2.1 -> 1.2 > >> >> 2.2 -> 1.3 > >> >> 3.0 -> 2.0 > >> > >> This is always an N-to-1 mapping, while N being the versions of our APIs > >> and 1 the MXNet Core version. From MXNets versioning perspective, this > >> would then looking the following: > >> > MXNet-Version -> APIs > >> >> 1.0 -> Scala_1.0; R_1.0 > >> >> 1.1 -> Scala_1.1; R_2.0 > >> >> 1.2 -> Scala_2.0; R_2.1 > >> >> 1.3 -> Scala_2.1; R_2.2 > >> >> 2.0 -> Scala_3.0; R_3.0 > >> > >> This would give us the liberty to develop MXNet without restricting us > too > >> much - of course, major version increments will still have to be > >> considered > >> carefully. I don't think that this would harm transparency too much and > >> there's no need to write big documentation. > >> > >> -Marco > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, YiZhi Liu <liuyi...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > I have no idea how separating Scala API version can solve the > >> > 'compatibility' problem. Do you mean we have different version for > >> > 'ml.dmlc' namespace and 'org.apache' namespace? Do these two versions > >> > have same behavior? How to tell which Scala API version works with > >> > which MXNet core version? By document? How many users will read the > >> > whole document and carefully pair the version id before they run into > >> > a strange error and give up? > >> > > >> > Moreover, changing namespace is an issue that is really rare and > >> > hardly happens. For other 'compatibility' problem, for example, the > >> > class/function definitions, should handle the compatibility itself. > >> > You'll never expect a project to have a different version for changing > >> > 'calculate(int)' to 'calculate(float)', it should just add a new > >> > function 'calculate(float)'. > >> > > >> > Regarding 'In this case the Scala interface is clearly a separate > >> > entity from the C API.'. Everything can be seen as a separate entity, > >> > the mxnet engine, the graph description, operators, python API, gluon > >> > API, etc. We should think carefully what we want to provide, and what > >> > our users need. > >> > > >> > As an example, Apache Spark, still has SparkR (R API), PySpark (Python > >> > API), MLLib, GraphX ... as part of its release, and have the same > >> > version as Spark core as well as its Scala/Java API. > >> > > >> > 2018-03-10 23:58 GMT-08:00 kellen sunderland < > >> kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com > >> > >: > >> > > +1 (non-binding) to what Marco is describing. +1 (non-binding) to > >> > getting the Scala bindings with the namespace change into Maven. > >> > > > >> > > The general best practice for SemVer, which is used by most projects > >> > that employ SemVer, is to apply SemVer to the public APIs of packages > >> that > >> > ship with your project. If you have several independent APIs this > could > >> > mean that they are versioned separately from each other, and from the > >> > overall project versioning mechanism. > >> > > > >> > > For example, the .NET Core library ships with a number of binaries, > >> each > >> > with their own SemVerioned APIs. They also have a high-level, easy to > >> > understand version for the package as a whole: > >> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/versions/. > >> > > > >> > > Nodesource has a good description of this: > >> http://nodesource.com/blog/ > >> > semver-a-primer/ > >> > > “Semver is a scheme for interface versioning for the benefit of > >> > interface consumers, thus if a tool has multiple interfaces, e.g. an > API > >> > and a CLI, these interfaces may evolve independent versioning.” > >> > > > >> > > SemVer at its core is a communication mechanism to inform developers > >> of > >> > incompatibilities. In this case the Scala interface is clearly a > >> separate > >> > entity from the C API. I.e. changing the Scala namespace isn’t going > to > >> > break C API users. It does not communicate anything useful to these > >> users > >> > if we up their major version in response to a Scala change, it simply > >> > breaks compatibility. If we group all interfaces together, and > >> increment > >> > whenever any of them has a breaking change we’ll soon be at MXNet > >> version > >> > 587. We’ll be forcing our users to check compatibility and update > their > >> > dependency tracking constantly. The end result is that our users will > >> stop > >> > pulling in new versions of the library. > >> > > > >> > > What I would propose is that (1) we have a high-level SemVer system > >> that > >> > tracks our C_API. This is the ‘MXNet’ version that we generally refer > >> to > >> > and emphasize for our public releases. For each API we have an > >> independent > >> > versioning system that if we can, we fix to the MXNet version. When > it > >> > makes sense we version these APIs independently. So for example we > >> could > >> > have a MXNet 1.2 release that ships with a 2.0 Scala API / R API. > >> > > > >> > > In terms of Apache process I think shipping artifacts with a > >> non-Apache > >> > namespace is a bigger issue than whatever versioning conventions we > >> decide > >> > to use. > >> > > > >> > > -Kellen > >> > > > >> > > From: Carin Meier > >> > > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 1:41 PM > >> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > >> > > Cc: d...@mxnet.apache.org > >> > > Subject: Re: Publishing Scala Package/namespace change > >> > > > >> > > +1 as well. I'm actively developing a Clojure package for MXNet that > >> uses > >> > > the jars from the Scala package. > >> > > > >> > > - Carin > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:44 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> +1 for changing the namespace asap. for the maven deploy, we can > have > >> > >> it build along with pip deployment. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2018-03-09 10:15 GMT-08:00 Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > Hi Guys, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I am working on MXNet Scala Inference APIs > >> > >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MXNET-50> along with > >> another > >> > >> > contributor Roshani. A while back I noticed that we haven't been > >> > >> publishing > >> > >> > the scala package to Maven for a while now(last one being > v0.11.1a > >> > under > >> > >> > the dmlc namespace). > >> > >> > Currently users have to build the package manually and then use > it, > >> > this > >> > >> > hinders adoption and also is painful to build everything from > >> source. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I also see that we haven't changed the namespace to org.apache > and > >> > >> instead > >> > >> > are still ml.dmlc namespace. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I wanted to seek your opinion about changing the MXNet-Scala > >> package > >> > >> > namespace to org.apache for the Scala package and publish to > Maven > >> in > >> > the > >> > >> > upcoming release. I understand that this probably breaks the > Semver > >> > >> > semantics that is agreed upon, However I would like to point out > >> that > >> > the > >> > >> > Scala package has never been published to maven as 1.0 under > >> > org.apache. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Open to suggestions. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Thanks, Naveen > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Yizhi Liu > >> > >> DMLC member > >> > >> Amazon Web Services > >> > >> Vancouver, Canada > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Yizhi Liu > >> > DMLC member > >> > Amazon Web Services > >> > Vancouver, Canada > >> > > >> > > > > >
