-1 for different versioning. I feel its just added confusion for users.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:35 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree. > > And my reply to Marco's point, > > > Changing namespaces is one use-case, but there will be a lot more with > increasing activity - we have to take the bigger picture in mind. > And you mentioned the CPP package as an example. > > During analysis, we figured that a re-engineering of that API would be > more appropriate and easier maintainable. > I cannot agree as an engineer. Why not keep old API and add new ones? > Just like in c_api.h, we added xxxEx while did not remove xxx, which > keeps APIs compatible. > > > I think it is safe to say that the other APIs have not been maintained > as actively as our Python/Gluon API. > Are you saying, if an API is maintained actively and is widely used, > then it should be versioned together with MXNet Core? > Interesting, maybe instead we should have another discussion to decide > whether to remove some of the 'inactive' frontend bindings from the > repo. > > > We have to do #3 anyways, so it is just about having a different number > set as version string. > A release with 6 different versions and 5 mappings? > > > I really don't see an issue in #1 - it's a simple lookup that could be > done on our website. > Please be careful to say 'simple', each time we introduce an > additional step, we lose a number of our potential users. > And as I describe in my #5. Imagine an inverse situation. When someone > has a model trained by gluon 1.6.0, he want to deploy it to JVM, what > Scala API version should he use? 1.6.0? No. And which R package > version he should use? It is still different from either Gluon version > or Scala API version. What a nightmare. > > 2018-03-12 14:11 GMT-07:00 Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>: > > Marco, you're mixing votes again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * This leaves us with three options: 1. Vote failed: No refactoring of > > user-facing APIs (including namespace changes) possible OR major version > > increase 2. Vote succeeded: Refactoring of user-facing APIs possible and > > only users of the changed APIs are affected while major version does not > > increase for other APIs. 3. Remove SemVer: We could introduce breaking > > changes at any point in time, but our users would be losing trust due to > > unexpected failures during upgrades.* > > > > What you're describing is not what this vote is about. This vote is > > whether to separate mxnet and API versioning. > > Please try to stay on task. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> Regarding #4: Changing namespaces is one use-case, but there will be a > lot > >> more with increasing activity - we have to take the bigger picture in > mind. > >> I think it is safe to say that the other APIs have not been maintained > as > >> actively as our Python/Gluon API (which I would say could be versioned > >> together with MXNet Core, but it does not really make a difference). > This > >> results in our APIs not reflecting all features available in MXNet (#2) > or > >> doing it in a way that we wouldn't recommend nowadays. While it is no > >> problem to add new features to an API using a minor version change, it > >> limits our possibilites to do a refactor. Our team, for example, got a > >> customer that would like to see the functionality of the Cpp package > being > >> increased. During analysis, we figured that a re-engineering of that API > >> would be more appropriate and easier maintainable. If we don't pass this > >> vote, we won't be able to make any improvements to our less maintained > APIs > >> without a major version increment - which the community is also heavily > >> against. We have to do #3 anyways, so it is just about having a > different > >> number set as version string - right now we're making it easy for > ourselves > >> by basically not maintaining any other than the Python interface and > >> declining all breaking changes or refactors to APIs. I really don't see > an > >> issue in #1 - it's a simple lookup that could be done on our website. > >> Simply select the version of MXNet you would like to have and it will > >> provide you with the appropriate installation instructions - the same > way > >> we're already doing it. > >> > >> This leaves us with three options: > >> 1. Vote failed: No refactoring of user-facing APIs (including namespace > >> changes) possible OR major version increase > >> 2. Vote succeeded: Refactoring of user-facing APIs possible and only > users > >> of the changed APIs are affected while major version does not increase > for > >> other APIs. > >> 3. Remove SemVer: We could introduce breaking changes at any point in > time, > >> but our users would be losing trust due to unexpected failures during > >> upgrades. > >> > >> -Marco > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:22 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > STRONGLY -1 (binding) as I explained in another thread 'Publishing > >> > Scala Package/namespace change'. I think separating version is > >> > harmful. > >> > > >> > 1. It is harmful to user experience > >> > 1) Each time users want to use a specific feature, need to first > >> > check the mxnet core version, then check which frontend work with this > >> > core version. > >> > 2) Each time users have problem using a frontend (Scala/R/...) > >> > API, need to figure out which core version they are using. > >> > 2. Frontend APIs are tightly binding to the 'MXNet Core', e.g., almost > >> > all APIs extract operator definitions from the Core, which makes the > >> > API version and Core version a one-on-one mapping. Then why separate? > >> > 3. It introduces overhead for release. Now each release need to > >> > involve a bunch of frontend release version, along with the MXNet core > >> > release version. > >> > 4. The only benefit I see so far is, it makes easier for Scala package > >> > to change the namespace from ml.dmlc to org.apache (by increasing > >> > Scala API major version id without changing the MXNet core major > >> > version). But, > >> > 1) It is very likely that, this is the ONLY time we benefit from > >> > separate versioning. Changing namespace is a very rare issue that > >> > forces us to make APIs incompatible. In other situations, the APIs > >> > evolves smoothly which can stay compatible for a long time. > >> > 2) We can still discuss whether we have to change the major > version. > >> > 3) Even the answer to 2) is Yes, I think it is affordable to wait > >> > for MXNet 2.0 to change 'ml.dmlc' to 'org.apache' > >> > 5. Other Apache projects, e.g., Apache Spark, have PySpark (Python > >> > frontend API), SparkR (R frontend API), MLLib, GraphX, etc, same > >> > version as the Spark Core, as well as the Scala/Java API. I feel it > >> > convenient since every time I check a document, say, MLLib 1.6.0, I > >> > can tell it works with Spark Core 1.6.0 and GraphX 1.6.0. And I can > >> > expect when I use Python API 1.6.0, it will behave the same. > >> > > >> > and for +1 votings, do you mean to separate Python/Gluon API > versioning > >> as > >> > well? > >> > > >> > 2018-03-12 11:18 GMT-07:00 Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com>: > >> > > -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 > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Yizhi Liu > >> > DMLC member > >> > Amazon Web Services > >> > Vancouver, Canada > >> > > >> > > > > -- > Yizhi Liu > DMLC member > Amazon Web Services > Vancouver, Canada >
