I am not involved in GluonCV/NLP so I cannot speak for the corresponding community. I think it is great that GluonCV/NLP as a package has brought quite a lot of users to MXNet, it is up to the respective community to make the decision of their branding.
Tianqi On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:06 PM Lin Yuan <[email protected]> wrote: > @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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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. > > > > > >
