@Junru Thanks for the clarification. Given that we already have courseware
and books with Gluon, it makes sense to brand “Mxnet Gluon” with Gluon
being the high level API of mxnet

@Tianqi what’s the roadmap of GluonNLP/GluonCV? Are they positioned to be
high level API of MXnet or some plug-and-play components that could
potentially be put on top of other frameworks in the future? If the former,
should we always highlight Mxnet whenever we advertise GluonNLP?

Thanks

Lin

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@cs.washington.edu>
wrote:

> Change the name gluon will result in a significant problem of backward
> compatibility for many of the current users, and that would be a huge -1
> for the current community.
> One possibility is to do that is to have a clear roadmap of 2.0(which gives
> the message of non-backward compatible) and we can discuss which features
> consolidate, but perhaps that will require a bit more thoughts and
> coordinated effort.
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:39 PM Junru Shao <junrushao1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > @Tianqi For sure GluonCV and GluonNLP should go with the current name. No
> > reason to change.
> >
> > @Lin If customers are interested, I guess we could say they are awesome
> > toolkits built on top of MXNet Gluon API, and perfect illustration to
> write
> > clever and powerful code on the top of it.
> >
>

Reply via email to