Versioned Dropdown for Python API Docs

[Goggins, Connor]

With the development of MXNet Website 2.0, I propose a version dropdown for the 
Python API docs to support documentation for past releases and reduce confusion 
regarding the incompatibility of past releases with the current docs (which 
only cover master).

Issues is being tracked 
here.

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 JVM Language development (#17783)

[Carin Meier]

For the Clojure package. It is a lot easier to interop with Java than with 
Scala - so if the the base is Java that  every thing is using - it will be 
better for Clojure.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783#issuecomment-596779618

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 JVM Language development (#17783)

[Lanking]

Reopened #17783.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783#event-3112408479

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 JVM Language development (#17783)

[Lanking]

Closed #17783.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783#event-3112408330

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 JVM Language development (#17783)

[Lanking]

> It is going to be closer to a complete rewrite. On the other hand, making a 
> new Scala API would be imperative instead of symbolic and I think there are 
> going to be a lot of operator changes to better match numpy in 2.0. I don't 
> think the migration costs for a Scala 2.0 would be that much less anyway
> 
> For users who don't want a full rewrite, they can continue using an old 
> release or whatever new releases we make on the v1.x branch.

I would be cautious to say a complete rewrite, especially talking about 
inference use cases. They can still use similar 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783#issuecomment-596779343

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 JVM Language development (#17783)

[Zach Kimberg]

It is going to be closer to a complete rewrite. On the other hand, making a new 
Scala API would be imperative instead of symbolic and I think there are going 
to be a lot of operator changes to better match numpy in 2.0. I don't think the 
migration costs for a Scala 2.0 would be that much less anyway

For users who don't want a full rewrite, they can continue using an old release 
or whatever new releases we make on the v1.x branch.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783#issuecomment-596777456

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 JVM Language development (#17783)

[Carin Meier]

@lanking520 thanks for the clarification above. A further question - How do 
envision a current Scala MXNet user migrate their code? Is it going to be 
mostly reusable or is it going to be a current rewrite for them?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783#issuecomment-596714532