-1 Because of the customer pain-points mentioned by others. I think for good customer experience, all code in MXNet repository excluding submodules and 3rd party dependencies should map to the same version.
Anirudh On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:17 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com> wrote: > Kellen, we are not talking about using wrong native package AFTER > downloading the package. It's about deciding which version to use > BEFORE downloading, and collecting information to debug. > > Copy-paste my previous words, > > " > 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. > > 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 16:10 GMT-07:00 kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com > >: > > @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 <rahulhuil...@gmail.com> > > 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 < > >> roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > -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 > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Rahul Huilgol > >> > > > > -- > Yizhi Liu > DMLC member > Amazon Web Services > Vancouver, Canada >
