-1 for different versioning, it not only be maintenance nightmare but also more importantly confusing to users,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > According to the discussion in the Scala thread, the release cycles would > stay unchanged and are still part of the mxnet releases. > > Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo., 12. März 2018, 17:42: > > > how about release cycle? > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Yuan Tang <terrytangy...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Tianqi Chen <tqc...@cs.washington.edu> schrieb am Mo., 12. März > 2018, > > > > 17:33: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It has been proposed that all Non-C API's follow separate > > versioning > > > > from > > > > > > the main mxnet C API/releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > A +1 vote is in *favor of* using a different versioning for all > > > > > > non-C-API's, with each API (Scala, R, Julia, C++, etc.) having > its > > > own > > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > A -1 vote is *against* using a different versioning for all > > > > non-C-API's, > > > > > > with all API's (Scala, R, Julia, C++, etc.) sharing the mxnet > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > This vote will conclude on Monday, March 19, 2018. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
