@Rahul + Roshani, I would hear what you're saying if the user had to worry about using the native package, but that worry is abstracted from them. The scala package has a dependency on the native library and includes the native lib inside the jar. The correct lib is then bound against at runtime. I don't see how a user can use the wrong library or be confused here unless the instructions on this page are incorrect: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/scala-package
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:02 AM, Rahul Huilgol <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 for the frontends having different versions than the backend. It not > only creates confusion for new users, but also increases the work of > developers who need to ensure compatibility. All this for a one-time change > of namespace of a package? > > I think we should increase the major version number to make this change? > Why do we have to 'wait' for 2.0? Who tells us that it's time for a 2.0 > version? > > I think expecting a user to look up version numbers on the website and > ensure compatibility as suggested above, is not a simple task. Most users > might not even know how the backend and frontend integrate. They might not > even know that there is a C API which powers the frontends. Even knowing > how to look up documentation for a particular version of MXNet is a > non-trivial task right now. (And there are pages in a version's > documentation which link to a file in another version). We should avoid > introducing more complexity into the process. As developers we tend to > overlook the important aspect of user experience. I think we should take a > step back and look at this from the perspective of a user, not from that of > a developer who works closely with MXNet. > > Regards, > Rahul > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Roshani Nagmote < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > -1 for different versioning. > > > > I feel its just added confusion for users. > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:35 PM, YiZhi Liu <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: > > > > 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 < > > > > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > > >> > > -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 < > > > >> > > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> schrieb am Mo., 12. März > 2018, > > > >> 17:42: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > how about release cycle? > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Yuan Tang < > > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > +1 > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > >> > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > +1 > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Tianqi Chen <[email protected]> schrieb am Mo., > 12. > > > März > > > >> > >> 2018, > > > >> > >> > > > 17:33: > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > +1 > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Chris Olivier < > > > >> > >> > [email protected] > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > Rahul Huilgol >
