Re: new website

[Sergio Fernández]

I'm surprised we haven't properly announced such cool launch.
https://twitter.com/wikier/status/1176903475906482176

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 PM Pedro Larroy 
wrote:

> The new website looks great Aaron. Nice work to everyone involved !
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 5:26 PM Aaron Markham 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm very excited to share a preview and the pull requests for a new
> > website and new documentation pipelines.
> >
> > The following link is using Apache's new staging site setup. It is
> > built from the new docs publishing pipelines in CI where a Jekyll
> > website is built, and documentation artifacts from Clojure, CPP, Java,
> > Julia, Python, R, and Scala are combined into one website.
> >
> > https://mxnet-beta.staged.apache.org
> >
> > It is the culmination of a lot of effort of several MXNet contributors.
> >
> > * A huge shout out goes to Thomas Delteil for the work on the new
> > Jekyll-backend and beautiful-looking website, and for helping me out
> > whenever I'd get stuck on revamping the 7 different API docs systems
> > in CI.
> > * Soji Adeshina and Vishaal Kapoor both helping me with the system
> > design for the new docs pipelines.
> > * Per Goncalves da Silva and Marco de Abreu both helped me with
> > figuring out CI issues.
> > * We also ported over Mu Li's beta site for the Python & R APIs which
> > had many contributors there. Thanks goes to Mu, Ivy Bazan, Jonas
> > Mueller, Aston Zhang, and Zhi Zhang for their help & contributions. I
> > apologize in advance if I missed anyone.
> >
> > Highlights:
> >
> > * R docs are now generated as part of CI. There were issues with R
> > docs coming from beta repo. They were not reproducible. So I began the
> > process of creating the pdf doc that is expected by R users as an
> > alternative. Thomas fixed a CPP bug that was blocking 90% of the docs
> > from appearing. The R docs are 10x in length compared to the pdf we're
> > hosting now!
> >
> > * Each other API is built in a micro-site fashion. You will notice
> > that the reference API links will open up the site that is generated
> > by that language's docs tools. We tried to keep the navigation common
> > and do this for the Python API. This is something that can be expanded
> > on for the other APIs in later updates to the website.
> >
> > * Each doc set can be generated separately with functions that will
> > run in Docker and generate the docs artifacts. This means you can now
> > focus on your preferred API and not have to deal with anything else.
> >
> > * Website changes are now much easier. You can serve Jekyll locally,
> > and have it do incremental updates, so you can see your changes live
> > without having to build MXNet or anything else. It's a pure front-end
> > setup.
> >
> > * For website publishing, the MXNet binary is built once and then
> > shared with the other docs generation pipelines.
> >
> > * For individual docs runs, you can run a "lite" binary build, then
> > follow it up with the docs run you want.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > For example to build MXNet:
> >
> > ci/build.py --docker-registry mxnetcidev --platform ubuntu_cpu_lite
> > /work/runtime_functions.sh build_ubuntu_cpu_docs
> >
> > Then to build the R docs:
> >
> > ci/build.py --docker-registry mxnetcidev --platform ubuntu_cpu_r
> > /work/runtime_functions.sh build_r_docs
> >
> > There is now a Docker image and a runtime_function for each API
> > (except Perl which is built offsite). Python is like this:
> >
> > ci/build.py --docker-registry mxnetcidev --platform ubuntu_cpu_python
> > /work/runtime_functions.sh build_python_docs
> >
> > The pattern for platform is ubuntu_cpu_{api} and runtime_functions.sh
> > is build_{api}_docs.
> >
> > Further information is on the developer wiki:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Building+the+New+Website
> > 
> >
> > Ok, now this is where YOU come in. We need reviewers and testers.
> >
> > There are a lot of changes. My original PR was over 1,000 files with
> > 83k additions and 55k deletions. So, Thomas broke this up into three
> > pull requests that stack.
> >
> > Step 1 New Content https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15884
> > Step 2 Remove Old Content
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15885
> > Step 3 Setup New Jenkins
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15886
> >
> > For reviewing purposes, start with the new content - what's easily
> > visible on the preview website. This is mostly happening in the first
> > PR:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15884
> > You can also look at these helper PRs that show you the differences so
> > it is easier to review what's happening in Steps 2 and 3. You can
> > review these now as well.
> > Step 1->2: https://github.com/ThomasDelteil/incubator-mxnet/pull/5
> > Step 2->3: https://github.com/ThomasDelteil/incubator-mxnet/pull/6
> >
> > I really appreciate everyone's support on this effort.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Aaron
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document

[Sergio Fernández]

+1 since the Beam model is much more open than the current one.

Here my two cents to the discussion:

You can see that in the past was different,, but we had evolved as
foundation. As general recommendation, the new way is to spend less effort
in ad-hoc bylaws on every project/podling and adopt the general ones. The
easier the project is managed, normally the better the community evolves.

In addition, as a linguistic detail: commiters and/or pmc do not have more
"privileges", but "responsibilities".

Cheers,

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 15:47 Carin Meier  wrote:

> This vote is to adopt the document
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>
> The dev discussion thread is here
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
>  for a
> modifying factor.)
>
> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>
> Thanks,
> Carin
>

Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package

[Sergio Fernández]

If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512 instructions,
then +1


On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai  wrote:

> Hey all,
> We have been working hard these past few months to integrate and stabilize
> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet and have made
> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions (such as c5.18x) we
> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other platforms (Macs,
> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks can be found here
> (
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650764
>  and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
>
> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer to either pip
> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it themselves from
> source. Given that we should try to provide the best performance "out of
> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the default build. The mkldnn
> library is included with in the pip package build so it does not require an
> external dependency.
>
> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions on certain
> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while back); but we
> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows users to turn of this
> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other concerns you may have and
> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the default build.
>
> Best,
> Alex
>

Re: Apache MXNet (incubating) Python Docker Images

[Sergio Fernández]

Python 2.7 reaches End of Life by the end on 2019.Take that into account.

About Python 3.x, why not having 3.6 docker images? I know 3.7 is not yet
supposed by MXNet. But starting with 3 5 doesn't make much sense for me

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 11:52 Meghna Baijal 
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.
> 
>
> Thanks,
> Meghna Baijal
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.0 Release

[Sergio Fernández]

Zha, you should check you have permissions to post to annou...@apache.org,
because I don't think you announcement made it through:
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?annou...@apache.org:lte=1M:mxnet

[image: Screen Shot 2018-09-19 at 12.05.14 PM.png]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 3:51 PM Sheng Zha  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> The Apache MXNet (incubating) Community announces the availability of
> Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.0!
>
> Release blog post:
> https://blogs.apache.org/mxnet/entry/announcing-apache-mxnet-incubating-1
> https://medium.com/apache-mxnet/announcing-apache-mxnet-1-3-0-484ea78c22ad
>
> Apache MXNet (incubating) is a deep learning framework designed for
> both efficiency and flexibility. It allows you to mix symbolic and
> imperative programming to maximize efficiency and productivity.
>
> This release improves usability, performance, and interoperability.
>
> A full list of the changes in this release can be found in the release
> notes:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.3.0+Release+Notes
>
> A Link to the Download is here:
> https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/mxnet/1.3.0
>
> If you prefer to build from source and experiment with various
> compile-time configuration options, use this link to get the
> instructions:
> http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/install/index.html
>
> Or You can download and play with MXNet easily using one of the options
> below:
>1. The Pip packages can be found here:
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mxnet
>2. The Docker Images can be found here:
> https://hub.docker.com/r/mxnet/python/
>
> Links in Maven to the published Scala packages:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/mxnet/
> https://repository.apache.org/#nexus-search;quick~org.apache.mxnet
>
> and to the experimental Clojure packages:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/mxnet/contrib/clojure/
>
> The release tag used for the 1.3.0 release is:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.3.0
>
> Some more MXNet Resources:
>1. Issues: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues
>2. Wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET
>
>
> If you want to learn more about MXNet visit
> http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/
>
> Finally, you are welcome to join and also invite your friends to the
> dynamic and growing MXNet community by subscribing to
> dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
>
>
> Acknowledgments:
> We would like to thank everyone who contributed to the 1.3.0 release:
>
> Aaron Markham, Abhinav Sharma, access2rohit, Alex Li, Alexander Alexandrov,
> Alexander Zai, Amol Lele, Andrew Ayres, Anirudh Acharya, Anirudh
> Subramanian, Ankit Khedia, Anton Chernov, aplikaplik, Arunkumar V Ramanan,
> Asmus Hetzel, Aston Zhang, bl0, Ben Kamphaus, brli, Burin Choomnuan,
> Burness Duan, Caenorst, Cliff Woolley, Carin Meier, cclauss, Carl Tsai,
> Chance Bair, chinakook, Chudong Tian, ciyong, ctcyang, Da Zheng, Dang Trung
> Kien, Deokjae Lee, Dick Carter, Didier A., Eric Junyuan Xie, Faldict, Felix
> Hieber, Francisco Facioni, Frank Liu, Gnanesh, Hagay Lupesko, Haibin Lin,
> Hang Zhang, Hao Jin, Hao Li, Haozhi Qi, hasanmua, Hu Shiwen, Huilin Qu,
> Indhu Bharathi, Istvan Fehervari, JackieWu, Jake Lee, James MacGlashan,
> jeremiedb, Jerry Zhang, Jian Guo, Jin Huang, jimdunn, Jingbei Li, Jun Wu,
> Kalyanee Chendke, Kellen Sunderland, Kovas Boguta, kpmurali, Kurman
> Karabukaev, Lai Wei, Leonard Lausen, luobao-intel, Junru Shao, Lianmin
> Zheng, Lin Yuan, lufenamazon, Marco de Abreu, Marek Kolodziej, Manu Seth,
> Matthew Brookhart, Milan Desai, Mingkun Huang, miteshyh, Mu Li, Nan Zhu,
> Naveen Swamy, Nehal J Wani, PatricZhao, Paul Stadig, Pedro Larroy,
> perdasilva, Philip Hyunsu Cho, Pishen Tsai, Piyush Ghai, Pracheer Gupta,
> Przemyslaw Tredak, Qiang Kou, Qing Lan, qiuhan, Rahul Huilgol, Rakesh
> Vasudevan, Ray Zhang, Robert Stone, Roshani Nagmote, Sam Skalicky, Sandeep
> Krishnamurthy, Sebastian Bodenstein, Sergey Kolychev, Sergey Sokolov, Sheng
> Zha, Shen Zhu, Sheng-Ying, Shuai Zheng, slitsey, Simon, Sina Afrooze, Soji
> Adeshina, solin319, Soonhwan-Kwon, starimpact, Steffen Rochel, Taliesin
> Beynon, Tao Lv, Thom Lane, Thomas Delteil, Tianqi Chen, Todd Sundsted, Tong
> He, Vandana Kannan, vdantu, Vishaal Kapoor, wangzhe, xcgoner, Wei Wu,
> Wen-Yang Chu, Xingjian Shi, Xinyu Chen, yifeim, Yizhi Liu, YouRancestor,
> Yuelin Zhang, Yu-Xiang Wang, Yuan Tang, Yuntao Chen, Zach Kimberg, Zhennan
> Qin, Zhi Zhang, zhiyuan-huang, Ziyue Huang, Ziyi Mu, Zhuo Zhang.
>
> … and thanks to all of the Apache MXNet community supporters, spreading
> knowledge and helping to grow the community!
>
>
> Thanks!
> Apache MXNet (incubating) Team
> ___
>
> DISCLAIMER:
> Apache MXNet (incubating) is an effort undergoing incubation at The
> Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the name of Apache
> Incubator PMC. Incubation is required of all newly accepted
> projects until 

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.2.1.RC1

[Sergio Fernández]

+1 (binding)

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 16:53 Roshani Nagmote 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to propose a vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> 1.2.1.RC1. Voting will start now (Monday, Jul 9th) and end at 5:50 PM
> PDT, Thursday, July 12th.
>
> Link to release candidate 1.2.1.rc1:
> *https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.2.1.rc1
> *
>
> View this page, click on "Build from Source", and use the source code
> obtained from 1.2.1.rc1 tag:
> https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/install/index.html
>
> (Note: The README.md points to the 1.2.1 tag and does not work at the
> moment.)
>
> Please remember to test first before voting accordingly:
>
> +1 = approve
> +0 = no opinion
> -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
>
> Thanks,
> Roshani
>

ICLAs?

[Sergio Fernández]

Hi,

one detail I've notices: is the Podling collecting all ICLA when people
contribute to the project?

I can' find traces for most of the folks in this list:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md

Because that's a minor, but important, detail for the viability of the
project.

Cheers,

Re: Regarding 1.2.1 Release

[Sergio Fernández]

Besides that I can't agree with the arguments about the warning at
1.2.1-RC1-incubating, but I guess I haven't much to say. Remember that "if
it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen".

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 17:37 Anirudh  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> After an offline discussion, the current decision is to block the 1.2.1
> release, improve the warning message for save_params usage here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11532 ,
> cut a new RC and then restart the voting process.
>
> Anirudh
>

Re: [RELEASE][VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.2.1.RC0

[Sergio Fernández]

Happy to help.

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 21:40 Chris Olivier  wrote:

> thank you for the explanation
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:25 PM Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > No, the result at dev@ it's fine. You just need 3 binding votes together
> > in
> > the two votes (dev@mxnet and general@incubator).
> >
> > (sorry fot the other email I sent by mistake)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 21:21 Anirudh  wrote:
> >
> > > Does PMC in this page mean IPMC :
> > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ?
> > > Also, does this mean we need three IPMC votes to pass this release on
> dev
> > > list ?
> > >
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Sergio Fernández 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just wanted to refresh what
> > > > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html#ppmc_and_binding_votes
> > > says:
> > > > "The only time when a PPMC member’s vote is binding is for the
> addition
> > > of
> > > > new PPMC members and committers. Release votes are only binding to
> IPMC
> > > > members.".
> > > >
> > > > So it's incorrect to mark as binding those votes at the RESULT email.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 17:38 Chris Olivier 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > what do you mean? just curious.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:44 PM Sergio Fernández <
> wik...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Please, notice PPMC votes are not binding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 09:35 Anirudh 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apologies for replying instead of sending out a new email.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This vote has passed with 6 +1s:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Binding:
> > > > > > > Sandeep
> > > > > > > Haibin
> > > > > > > Indhu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Non Binding:
> > > > > > > Carin
> > > > > > > Pedro
> > > > > > > Lai
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will proceed with the vote on general@.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Anirudh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [RELEASE][VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.2.1.RC0

[Sergio Fernández]

I've replied in another thread to

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 21:21 Anirudh  wrote:

> Does PMC in this page mean IPMC :
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ?
> Also, does this mean we need three IPMC votes to pass this release on dev
> list ?
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > Just wanted to refresh what
> > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html#ppmc_and_binding_votes
> says:
> > "The only time when a PPMC member’s vote is binding is for the addition
> of
> > new PPMC members and committers. Release votes are only binding to IPMC
> > members.".
> >
> > So it's incorrect to mark as binding those votes at the RESULT email.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 17:38 Chris Olivier  wrote:
> >
> > > what do you mean? just curious.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:44 PM Sergio Fernández 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please, notice PPMC votes are not binding.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 09:35 Anirudh  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Apologies for replying instead of sending out a new email.
> > > > >
> > > > > This vote has passed with 6 +1s:
> > > > >
> > > > > Binding:
> > > > > Sandeep
> > > > > Haibin
> > > > > Indhu
> > > > >
> > > > > Non Binding:
> > > > > Carin
> > > > > Pedro
> > > > > Lai
> > > > >
> > > > > I will proceed with the vote on general@.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Anirudh
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >I
>

Re: [RELEASE][VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.2.1.RC0

[Sergio Fernández]

Just wanted to refresh what
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html#ppmc_and_binding_votes says:
"The only time when a PPMC member’s vote is binding is for the addition of
new PPMC members and committers. Release votes are only binding to IPMC
members.".

So it's incorrect to mark as binding those votes at the RESULT email.


On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 17:38 Chris Olivier  wrote:

> what do you mean? just curious.
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:44 PM Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > Please, notice PPMC votes are not binding.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 09:35 Anirudh  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Apologies for replying instead of sending out a new email.
> > >
> > > This vote has passed with 6 +1s:
> > >
> > > Binding:
> > > Sandeep
> > > Haibin
> > > Indhu
> > >
> > > Non Binding:
> > > Carin
> > > Pedro
> > > Lai
> > >
> > > I will proceed with the vote on general@.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> >
>

Re: [RELEASE][VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.2.1.RC0

[Sergio Fernández]

Please, notice PPMC votes are not binding.

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 09:35 Anirudh  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Apologies for replying instead of sending out a new email.
>
> This vote has passed with 6 +1s:
>
> Binding:
> Sandeep
> Haibin
> Indhu
>
> Non Binding:
> Carin
> Pedro
> Lai
>
> I will proceed with the vote on general@.
>
> Thanks,
> Anirudh
>

Re: users@mxnet

[Sergio Fernández]

her forum. Disqus is already working and has healthy
> > > >>> participation, you can get an email digest if you so desire.
> > > Subscribing to
> > > >>> a mailing list to get a question answered is quite a heavyweight
> > > investment
> > > >>> for many people and users who might not have the resources nor
> mental
> > > >>> bandwidth to receive more email volume in their inboxes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:19 AM Tianqi Chen <
> > tqc...@cs.washington.edu
> > > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The problem of having multiple separate channels of communication
> is
> > > that
> > > >>>> users get confused, and the cost of maintenance goes up(people
> have
> > to
> > > >>>> watch both). As the current community was at discuss forum and
> many
> > > users
> > > >>>> prefer it, having a mail-list is only a burden we will bring
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Tianqi
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Jim Jagielski 
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> IMO, that is the wrong way to look at it.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> A users@ mailing list is a great, easy, low-cost and
> low-overhead
> > > way
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>> *increasing* the user community and providing an extra level of
> > > >>> support.
> > > >>>>> Unless there is "strong evidence" that this is NOT the case, I
> > would
> > > >>>>> recommend we create the list.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Jun 16, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Tianqi Chen <
> > tqc...@cs.washington.edu
> > > >
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> So unless there is a strong evidence that our community users
> > > prefers
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>> mail-list, I would recommend we keep the current way
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Tianqi
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Sergio Fernández <
> > > wik...@apache.org
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Are we targeting just Seattle as our community? I really hope
> we
> > > are
> > > >>>>>>> thinking a bit beyond that...
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:22 Tianqi Chen <
> > tqc...@cs.washington.edu>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I remember last time during the mxnet meetup in Seattle, we
> did
> > a
> > > >>>>> survey,
> > > >>>>>>>> and most users preferred the current discuss forum. So I
would
> > say
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>>>> stick
> > > >>>>>>>> with that given the user community prefers that
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Tianqi
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Sergio Fernández <
> > > >>> wik...@apache.org
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Then, if everybody agree, let's request the mailing list
> > creation
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>>> INFRA
> > > >>>>>>>>> ;-)
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Marco, I wouldn't do that. Typically developers are also
> > > >>> subscribed
> > > >>>>>>>> there,
> > > >>>>>>>>> since they may be the most informed people for answering
> users'
> > > >>>>>>>> questions.
> > > >>>>>>>>> But the topics discussed there may not be of the interest
for
> > > pure
> > > >>>>>>>>> development purposes. Some discussions will jump from users@
> > to
> > > >>>> dev@,
> > > >>>>>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>> at a different level. So I wouldn't forward one mailing list
> to
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> other.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:01 Marco de Abreu
> > > >>>>>>>>>  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I think nobody was opposed to it in the past, right?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I'd propose that all emails automatically get copied to
dev@
> > to
> > > >>>>>>> ensure
> > > >>>>>>>>>> high
> > > >>>>>>>>>> visibility initially. What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sebastian  schrieb am Fr., 15. Juni 2018,
> > > 20:51:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have already proposed this many times in the past and
> would
> > > >>>>>>>> strongly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> encourage it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -s
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 15.06.2018 21:56, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is there any good reason why the podling doesn't have a
> > users@
> > > >>>>>>>>> mailing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> yet?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Honestly speaking, I'm not a big fan of the other tools
> the
> > > >>>>>>> podling
> > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> using. Slack and Web forums a cool tools, and I used them
> a
> > > lot
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contexts. But when it comes to transparency and
community,
> > > >>>>>>> mailing
> > > >>>>>>>>>> lists
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> play a crucial role in the Apache Way.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Users are the most important asset a project can have.
> Even
> > > >>> more
> > > >>>>>>>> than
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> developers, believe me. So I think it's time to create a
> > > users@
> > > >>>>>>>>>> mailing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> list for to helping MXNet grow its community beyong the
> core
> > > >>>>>>> team.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Yizhi Liu
> > > > DMLC member
> > > > Amazon Web Services
> > > > Vancouver, Canada
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: users@mxnet

[Sergio Fernández]

Thanks for your opinion, Tianqi. I still would love to listen others'
opinion on the topic to really assert anything.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:41 Tianqi Chen  wrote:

> Then who should represent the users who are using the forums but not the
> mail-list? I personally think it is a bit abuse use of the term "Apache
> way" to force our mind into the entire community... Maybe I am wrong..
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > Well, I do respect what you discussed in that meetup, if course. But for
> > those who weren't there, maybe the decision taken what a bit bias.
> >
> > In Apache we like to say that "if it didn't happen on the mailing list s,
> > it didn't happen" ;-)
> >
> > Look like there are different feelings about this. Should I cast a VOTE?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:27 Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I do think we are targeting all the community, but we must also agree
> > that
> > > the voice of users from the meetup is a representative sample of users'
> > > demand, and it is important that we respect that.
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Sergio Fernández 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are we targeting just Seattle as our community? I really hope we are
> > > > thinking a bit beyond that...
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:22 Tianqi Chen 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I remember last time during the mxnet meetup in Seattle, we did a
> > > survey,
> > > > > and most users preferred the current discuss forum. So I would say
> we
> > > > stick
> > > > > with that given the user community prefers that
> > > > >
> > > > > Tianqi
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Sergio Fernández <
> wik...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Then, if everybody agree, let's request the mailing list creation
> > to
> > > > > INFRA
> > > > > > ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marco, I wouldn't do that. Typically developers are also
> subscribed
> > > > > there,
> > > > > > since they may be the most informed people for answering users'
> > > > > questions.
> > > > > > But the topics discussed there may not be of the interest for
> pure
> > > > > > development purposes. Some discussions will jump from users@ to
> > dev@
> > > ,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > at a different level. So I wouldn't forward one mailing list to
> the
> > > > > other.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:01 Marco de Abreu
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think nobody was opposed to it in the past, right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd propose that all emails automatically get copied to dev@
> to
> > > > ensure
> > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > visibility initially. What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sebastian  schrieb am Fr., 15. Juni 2018,
> 20:51:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have already proposed this many times in the past and would
> > > > > strongly
> > > > > > > > encourage it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -s
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 15.06.2018 21:56, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > is there any good reason why the podling doesn't have a
> > users@
> > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > yet?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Honestly speaking, I'm not a big fan of the other tools the
> > > > podling
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > using. Slack and Web forums a cool tools, and I used them a
> > lot
> > > > in
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > contexts. But when it comes to transparency and community,
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > play a crucial role in the Apache Way.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Users are the most important asset a project can have. Even
> > > more
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > developers, believe me. So I think it's time to create a
> > users@
> > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > list for to helping MXNet grow its community beyong the
> core
> > > > team.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: users@mxnet

[Sergio Fernández]

Well, I do respect what you discussed in that meetup, if course. But for
those who weren't there, maybe the decision taken what a bit bias.

In Apache we like to say that "if it didn't happen on the mailing list s,
it didn't happen" ;-)

Look like there are different feelings about this. Should I cast a VOTE?


On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:27 Tianqi Chen  wrote:

> I do think we are targeting all the community, but we must also agree that
> the voice of users from the meetup is a representative sample of users'
> demand, and it is important that we respect that.
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > Are we targeting just Seattle as our community? I really hope we are
> > thinking a bit beyond that...
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:22 Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I remember last time during the mxnet meetup in Seattle, we did a
> survey,
> > > and most users preferred the current discuss forum. So I would say we
> > stick
> > > with that given the user community prefers that
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Sergio Fernández 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Then, if everybody agree, let's request the mailing list creation to
> > > INFRA
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Marco, I wouldn't do that. Typically developers are also subscribed
> > > there,
> > > > since they may be the most informed people for answering users'
> > > questions.
> > > > But the topics discussed there may not be of the interest for pure
> > > > development purposes. Some discussions will jump from users@ to dev@
> ,
> > > but
> > > > at a different level. So I wouldn't forward one mailing list to the
> > > other.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:01 Marco de Abreu
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think nobody was opposed to it in the past, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd propose that all emails automatically get copied to dev@ to
> > ensure
> > > > > high
> > > > > visibility initially. What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sebastian  schrieb am Fr., 15. Juni 2018, 20:51:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have already proposed this many times in the past and would
> > > strongly
> > > > > > encourage it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -s
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 15.06.2018 21:56, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > is there any good reason why the podling doesn't have a users@
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > list
> > > > > > > yet?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Honestly speaking, I'm not a big fan of the other tools the
> > podling
> > > > is
> > > > > > > using. Slack and Web forums a cool tools, and I used them a lot
> > in
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > contexts. But when it comes to transparency and community,
> > mailing
> > > > > lists
> > > > > > > play a crucial role in the Apache Way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Users are the most important asset a project can have. Even
> more
> > > than
> > > > > > > developers, believe me. So I think it's time to create a users@
> > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > list for to helping MXNet grow its community beyong the core
> > team.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: users@mxnet

[Sergio Fernández]

Are we targeting just Seattle as our community? I really hope we are
thinking a bit beyond that...

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:22 Tianqi Chen  wrote:

> I remember last time during the mxnet meetup in Seattle, we did a survey,
> and most users preferred the current discuss forum. So I would say we stick
> with that given the user community prefers that
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > Then, if everybody agree, let's request the mailing list creation to
> INFRA
> > ;-)
> >
> > Marco, I wouldn't do that. Typically developers are also subscribed
> there,
> > since they may be the most informed people for answering users'
> questions.
> > But the topics discussed there may not be of the interest for pure
> > development purposes. Some discussions will jump from users@ to dev@,
> but
> > at a different level. So I wouldn't forward one mailing list to the
> other.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:01 Marco de Abreu
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > I think nobody was opposed to it in the past, right?
> > >
> > > I'd propose that all emails automatically get copied to dev@ to ensure
> > > high
> > > visibility initially. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Sebastian  schrieb am Fr., 15. Juni 2018, 20:51:
> > >
> > > > I have already proposed this many times in the past and would
> strongly
> > > > encourage it.
> > > >
> > > > -s
> > > >
> > > > On 15.06.2018 21:56, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > is there any good reason why the podling doesn't have a users@
> > mailing
> > > > list
> > > > > yet?
> > > > >
> > > > > Honestly speaking, I'm not a big fan of the other tools the podling
> > is
> > > > > using. Slack and Web forums a cool tools, and I used them a lot in
> > > other
> > > > > contexts. But when it comes to transparency and community, mailing
> > > lists
> > > > > play a crucial role in the Apache Way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Users are the most important asset a project can have. Even more
> than
> > > > > developers, believe me. So I think it's time to create a users@
> > > mailing
> > > > > list for to helping MXNet grow its community beyong the core team.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: users@mxnet

[Sergio Fernández]

Then, if everybody agree, let's request the mailing list creation to INFRA
;-)

Marco, I wouldn't do that. Typically developers are also subscribed there,
since they may be the most informed people for answering users' questions.
But the topics discussed there may not be of the interest for pure
development purposes. Some discussions will jump from users@ to dev@, but
at a different level. So I wouldn't forward one mailing list to the other.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:01 Marco de Abreu
 wrote:

> I think nobody was opposed to it in the past, right?
>
> I'd propose that all emails automatically get copied to dev@ to ensure
> high
> visibility initially. What do you think?
>
> Sebastian  schrieb am Fr., 15. Juni 2018, 20:51:
>
> > I have already proposed this many times in the past and would strongly
> > encourage it.
> >
> > -s
> >
> > On 15.06.2018 21:56, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > is there any good reason why the podling doesn't have a users@ mailing
> > list
> > > yet?
> > >
> > > Honestly speaking, I'm not a big fan of the other tools the podling is
> > > using. Slack and Web forums a cool tools, and I used them a lot in
> other
> > > contexts. But when it comes to transparency and community, mailing
> lists
> > > play a crucial role in the Apache Way.
> > >
> > > Users are the most important asset a project can have. Even more than
> > > developers, believe me. So I think it's time to create a users@
> mailing
> > > list for to helping MXNet grow its community beyong the core team.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> >
>

users@mxnet

[Sergio Fernández]

Hi,

is there any good reason why the podling doesn't have a users@ mailing list
yet?

Honestly speaking, I'm not a big fan of the other tools the podling is
using. Slack and Web forums a cool tools, and I used them a lot in other
contexts. But when it comes to transparency and community, mailing lists
play a crucial role in the Apache Way.

Users are the most important asset a project can have. Even more than
developers, believe me. So I think it's time to create a users@ mailing
list for to helping MXNet grow its community beyong the core team.

Cheers,

Re: Vote to stop using JIRA

[Sergio Fernández]

Hi,

I'm not going to express my opinion on this matter, because the community
is who has to decide what's best for the project.

I just want to say that there is no ASF/Incubator requirement that a
project/podling must use Jira as issue tracking system. There are other
projects using other hosted tools (for  instance, Tomcat uses Bugzilla),
and there are projects relying on GitHub issues (e.g., OpenWhisk).
Personally I think Jira brings quite some benefits, but it comes at a cost.
In any case, you just need to properly prepare INFRA to have a backup of
all the activities of the project relying on third party services (as you
have with GitBox).

Cheers,



On Sat, Jun 9, 2018, 17:23 Marco de Abreu 
wrote:

> Thanks a lot, this sounds like a good start. We definitely do not want to
> re-invent the wheel - if there's some setup we can copy, I'd love to do
> that as well!
>
> Something we need is the possibility to have projects with subtasks and the
> ability for any contributor (not committer) to contribute to these
> projects. This could be adding tasks, changing the state of a task, maybe
> even labelling and other things you usually do if you work on systems like
> a Kanban-board. We want to give contributors the possibility to manage a
> project entirely on their own without much involvement of committers.
>
> -Marco
>
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM Yasser Zamani 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/9/2018 5:01 PM, Marco de Abreu wrote:
> > > Would you mind creating a proposal document at
> > > [1], describing what you would have in mind and how project planning,
> > > -management, development, planning, third-party-engagements and other
> > > things you can think of would look like then?
> >
> > Yes of course. However, I think we don't have to reinvent the wheel. I'm
> > almost sure there are projects in Apache (either incubating or not)
> > which have similar general properties like MXNet. e.g. from Apache
> > reports, we can see which incubating (or not) project has a lot of
> > monthly revolutionary changes or issues while needs several different
> > contribution expertise. Then I can see how they work :)
> >
> > At Apache we aren't alone. If we couldn't find any doc via above, then
> > we have Apache Incubating Experts [1]. They're here and are experts for
> > such situations. I can ask them for any clues.
> >
> > But firstly let list what are problems: (I added following which I think
> > summarizes them via reading all of this thread)
> >
> > 1) It seems JIRA causes overhead works while makes it harder to new
> > contributors to file an issue.
> > 2) We don't have a document about how to manage a project using Apache
> > INFRA with these properties: has a lot of monthly revolutionary changes
> > and issues. needs several different contribution expertise e.g. C++,
> > Scala, Python and etc. has a lot of concurrent committers working on
> > different aspects and so may have no time to review others.
> > contributions have different skill levels but their management is flat
> > and not modular.
> >
> > @dev could you please update/delete or add to these if is needed? then
> > when completed, I can research or discuss them with experts mentioned :)
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > [1] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?incubator
> >
>

Re: backward compatibility of models saved with 1.2.0

[Sergio Fernández]

Thanks Thomas for producing a minimal example to reproduce the issue.

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Thomas DELTEIL 
wrote:

> Created a github issue detailing the problem with a reproducible example:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11091
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
> 2018-05-29 11:50 GMT-07:00 Sergio Fernández :
>
> > Hi Mario,
> >
> > I can't give you much details. But it looks there is a bug exporting the
> > parameters' names to a JSON models.
> >
> > I wonder if anybody else in the community has faced this bug.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Sergio,
> > >
> > > you are right. We are following semantic versioning and thus, every
> model
> > > produced within the same major version (e.g.1.x) has to be backwards
> > > compatible.
> > >
> > > Could you please provide a small example so we can reproduce this? We
> > > definitely do not want our users to retrain their model if they update
> > > MXNet. That's a serious issue and we'd love to follow up.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Marco
> > >
> > > Sergio Fernández  schrieb am Di., 29. Mai 2018,
> > 02:35:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I can't find anything related on that in the 1.2.-0-incubating
> > changelog,
> > > > so I assume models produced by the latest version would be backward
> > > > compatible with old versions, such as 1.1.0. But we've found that the
> > > > parameter model produced is very different and doesn't load.
> > > >
> > > > Can you point me to any documentation that could help us to load the
> > > model
> > > > in 1.1.0 without re-training?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: backward compatibility of models saved with 1.2.0

[Sergio Fernández]

Hi Mario,

I can't give you much details. But it looks there is a bug exporting the
parameters' names to a JSON models.

I wonder if anybody else in the community has faced this bug.

Cheers,


On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hello Sergio,
>
> you are right. We are following semantic versioning and thus, every model
> produced within the same major version (e.g.1.x) has to be backwards
> compatible.
>
> Could you please provide a small example so we can reproduce this? We
> definitely do not want our users to retrain their model if they update
> MXNet. That's a serious issue and we'd love to follow up.
>
> Best regards,
> Marco
>
> Sergio Fernández  schrieb am Di., 29. Mai 2018, 02:35:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can't find anything related on that in the 1.2.-0-incubating changelog,
> > so I assume models produced by the latest version would be backward
> > compatible with old versions, such as 1.1.0. But we've found that the
> > parameter model produced is very different and doesn't load.
> >
> > Can you point me to any documentation that could help us to load the
> model
> > in 1.1.0 without re-training?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>

backward compatibility of models saved with 1.2.0

[Sergio Fernández]

Hi,

I can't find anything related on that in the 1.2.-0-incubating changelog,
so I assume models produced by the latest version would be backward
compatible with old versions, such as 1.1.0. But we've found that the
parameter model produced is very different and doesn't load.

Can you point me to any documentation that could help us to load the model
in 1.1.0 without re-training?

Thanks.