Thank you Kellen and Steffen for your comments. I will wait for some more time in case anyone has a different opinion, else go ahead with the above recommendation.
Meghna On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:18 PM Steffen Rochel <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on Kellen’s comments and suggestion. > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:39 PM kellen sunderland < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > This feels like something we should get a little data on before making a > > decision, but I also don't have a strong opinion. I would bias towards > > pushing something that might be imperfect and moving on to develop other > > improvements for users rather than determining a 'perfect' solution. > > > > The questions/tradeoffs I see are (1) should we support multiple python > > versions in the first place, which requires extra work on our part but > > supports more users and (2) should we favor forwards or backwards > > compatibility, i.e. should we prioritize supporting existing users or > > prioritize making something that won't cause future problems for new and > > exiting users. > > > > The best data I can find with a quick google is the annual Jetbrains > survey > > which shows python2 went from 47% in 2017 to 25% in 2018: > > https://www.jetbrains.com/research/devecosystem-2017/python/ > > https://www.jetbrains.com/research/devecosystem-2018/python/ > > > > So python2 usage is trending sharply down but is not yet low enough to > > ignore which I think means we should try and support both on Dockerhub > (1). > > > > I don't see backwards compatibility with existing Docker users is a major > > concern given these Dockerfiles haven't been supported for a long time. > I > > would prioritize forwards compatibility (2) and assume we want to create > > something that will remain compatible for as long as possible. > > > > So I would push both python2 and python3 images, but make python 3.5 the > > default version, and python2 a version with a postfixed py2 tag in > > Dockerhub. > > > > Thanks to Mu (and others?) for original creating this Dockerhub images, I > > used to use them and found them very convenient, and to you Meghna for > > updating them. I think basing them on the pip packages is also a good > way > > to lower maintenance burden and make sure we leverage the great work > Sheng > > has done to create those packages. > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:52 AM Meghna Baijal < > [email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I am currently in the process of updating the python docker images for > > > Apache MXNet such that they are built on top of the pip binaries. > > > Until now these were built to use python 2.7 but with an upcoming PR I > am > > > also adding python 3.5 docker images. I would like to know the > > community’s > > > preference on whether I should keep the *Python 2.7 Docker image as the > > > default or should I move to Python 3.5 as the default version*? > > > > > > [1] The new python2 dockerfiles and build script can be found here. > > > < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/docker/docker-python > > > > > > > [2] The PR for python3 images is in progress and is here. > > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12791> > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Meghna Baijal > > > > > >
