Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Tianqi Chen]

 >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 17:00 Tianqi Chen  >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > The original amalgamation tries to generate a single file for
> > >> compilation
> > >> > > via a script.  This is largely un-necessary, having a file that
> > >> include
> > >> > the
> > >> > > dependent files and compile that one is relatively easy and
> > sometimes
> > >> > more
> > >> > > robust(without expanding everything into a single file).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I think it might makes sense to deprecate and remove the current
> one
> > >> > given
> > >> > > that it is no longer properly functioning. If someone is
> interested,
> > >> > create
> > >> > > another deployment example that is more standalone without the
> file
> > >> > > expansion. Here is an reference of the "new style" used in the tvm
> > >> > project
> > >> > > https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/howto_deploy
> > >> > >
> > >> > > TQ
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sheng Zha 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to
> > >> > > statically
> > >> > > > link to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > > > binary of unused functions? Though I don't know the full context
> > of
> > >> > > > amalgamation, based on my knowledge on this feature I'm not
> aware
> > of
> > >> > any
> > >> > > > difference in the end result, compared to the code-inlining
> > approach
> > >> > that
> > >> > > > amalgamation takes.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -sz
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy 
> wrote:
> > >> > > > > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all
> > >> self-serving
> > >> > > :)
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of
> the
> > >> > > original
> > >> > > > > work and make it better.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -1 to remove at this point
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics
> > up
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > discussion.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A  >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Sorry to chime in.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several
> times
> > to
> > >> > > merge
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it
> > >> would
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > great
> > >> > > > > > if someone from this thread can help to review.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > thanks,
> > >> > > > > > -tao
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > >> > > > > > From: Marco de Abreu 
> > >> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
> > >> > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any
> > other
> > >> > use
> > >> > > > cases?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > -Marco
> > >> > > > > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Chris Olivier]

another deployment example that is more standalone without the file
> >> > > expansion. Here is an reference of the "new style" used in the tvm
> >> > project
> >> > > https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/howto_deploy
> >> > >
> >> > > TQ
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sheng Zha 
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to
> >> > > statically
> >> > > > link to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid of
> >> the
> >> > > > binary of unused functions? Though I don't know the full context
> of
> >> > > > amalgamation, based on my knowledge on this feature I'm not aware
> of
> >> > any
> >> > > > difference in the end result, compared to the code-inlining
> approach
> >> > that
> >> > > > amalgamation takes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -sz
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy  wrote:
> >> > > > > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all
> >> self-serving
> >> > > :)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the
> >> > > original
> >> > > > > work and make it better.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -1 to remove at this point
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics
> up
> >> for
> >> > > > > discussion.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A 
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Sorry to chime in.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times
> to
> >> > > merge
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it
> >> would
> >> > be
> >> > > > great
> >> > > > > > if someone from this thread can help to review.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > thanks,
> >> > > > > > -tao
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -Original Message-
> >> > > > > > From: Marco de Abreu 
> >> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
> >> > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any
> other
> >> > use
> >> > > > cases?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -Marco
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi.,
> 11.
> >> > Sep.
> >> > > > 2019,
> >> > > > > > 11:57:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi Anirudh
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across
> >> that
> >> > way
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think
> >> calling
> >> > > > > > > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the
> >> > topic
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users,
> hence
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people
> who
> >> > > might
> >> > > > > > > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Thanks.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Pedro.
> >> > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Tianqi Chen]

erence in the end result, compared to the code-inlining approach
>> > that
>> > > > amalgamation takes.
>> > > >
>> > > > -sz
>> > > >
>> > > > On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy  wrote:
>> > > > > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all
>> self-serving
>> > > :)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the
>> > > original
>> > > > > work and make it better.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -1 to remove at this point
>> > > > >
>> > > > > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up
>> for
>> > > > > discussion.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Sorry to chime in.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to
>> > > merge
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it
>> would
>> > be
>> > > > great
>> > > > > > if someone from this thread can help to review.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > thanks,
>> > > > > > -tao
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -Original Message-
>> > > > > > From: Marco de Abreu 
>> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
>> > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other
>> > use
>> > > > cases?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -Marco
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi., 11.
>> > Sep.
>> > > > 2019,
>> > > > > > 11:57:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi Anirudh
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across
>> that
>> > way
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think
>> calling
>> > > > > > > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the
>> > topic
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence
>> > the
>> > > > > > > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who
>> > > might
>> > > > > > > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Pedro.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Hi Pedro,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for
>> > > > > > > > justification
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread
>> > > where
>> > > > I
>> > > > > > > > see
>> > > > > > > ad
>> > > > > > > > hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident
>&

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Tianqi Chen]

The main use of amalgamation(aka all in one file build) for cases where it
is hard to setup a Make system. Most user knows how to include a single
file into their project, but it is relatively harder to incorporate an
entire build system.

As a result, all-in-one file runtime is still being quite widely used and I
personally liked the approach, I just suggested that the current approach
may not be the best way to go and creates some maintenance burden.

See the link of an example project that uses new all-in-one approach that i
mentioned(which illustrates the usecase of all-in-one file as well)
https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/howto_deploy

TQ

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:46 AM Marco de Abreu 
wrote:

> Do we have a good knowledge and overview over all the use cases that use
> Amalgamation? At least from my perspective I don't feel well informed about
> the blast radius.
>
> -Marco
>
> Junru Shao  schrieb am Sa., 28. Sep. 2019, 09:14:
>
> > As Tianqi and Sheng mentioned, given the fact that we are able to do
> > deployment in a possibly better way (correct me if I was wrong), I would
> > love to +1 to Pedro’s proposal.
> >
> > In the meantime, as a healthy open source community, I also agree with
> > Naveen’s point that we should do more homework for both our developers
> and
> > customers. IMHO, for example, it would be super helpful if Pedro may
> bring
> > up some documentation describing what is the “best practice” of using the
> > alternative of amalgamation, if our community agree to deprecate it.
> >
> > Thank you guys so much for the discussion!
> >
> > Junru
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 17:00 Tianqi Chen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The original amalgamation tries to generate a single file for
> compilation
> > > via a script.  This is largely un-necessary, having a file that include
> > the
> > > dependent files and compile that one is relatively easy and sometimes
> > more
> > > robust(without expanding everything into a single file).
> > >
> > > I think it might makes sense to deprecate and remove the current one
> > given
> > > that it is no longer properly functioning. If someone is interested,
> > create
> > > another deployment example that is more standalone without the file
> > > expansion. Here is an reference of the "new style" used in the tvm
> > project
> > > https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/howto_deploy
> > >
> > > TQ
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > >
> > > > As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to
> > > statically
> > > > link to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid of the
> > > > binary of unused functions? Though I don't know the full context of
> > > > amalgamation, based on my knowledge on this feature I'm not aware of
> > any
> > > > difference in the end result, compared to the code-inlining approach
> > that
> > > > amalgamation takes.
> > > >
> > > > -sz
> > > >
> > > > On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy  wrote:
> > > > > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all
> self-serving
> > > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the
> > > original
> > > > > work and make it better.
> > > > >
> > > > > -1 to remove at this point
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up
> for
> > > > > discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry to chime in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to
> > > merge
> > > > it
> > > > > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would
> > be
> > > > great
> > > > > > if someone from this thread can help to review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > -tao
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: Marco de Abreu 
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 1

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Marco de Abreu]

Do we have a good knowledge and overview over all the use cases that use
Amalgamation? At least from my perspective I don't feel well informed about
the blast radius.

-Marco

Junru Shao  schrieb am Sa., 28. Sep. 2019, 09:14:

> As Tianqi and Sheng mentioned, given the fact that we are able to do
> deployment in a possibly better way (correct me if I was wrong), I would
> love to +1 to Pedro’s proposal.
>
> In the meantime, as a healthy open source community, I also agree with
> Naveen’s point that we should do more homework for both our developers and
> customers. IMHO, for example, it would be super helpful if Pedro may bring
> up some documentation describing what is the “best practice” of using the
> alternative of amalgamation, if our community agree to deprecate it.
>
> Thank you guys so much for the discussion!
>
> Junru
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 17:00 Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
>
> > The original amalgamation tries to generate a single file for compilation
> > via a script.  This is largely un-necessary, having a file that include
> the
> > dependent files and compile that one is relatively easy and sometimes
> more
> > robust(without expanding everything into a single file).
> >
> > I think it might makes sense to deprecate and remove the current one
> given
> > that it is no longer properly functioning. If someone is interested,
> create
> > another deployment example that is more standalone without the file
> > expansion. Here is an reference of the "new style" used in the tvm
> project
> > https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/howto_deploy
> >
> > TQ
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sheng Zha  wrote:
> >
> > > As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to
> > statically
> > > link to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid of the
> > > binary of unused functions? Though I don't know the full context of
> > > amalgamation, based on my knowledge on this feature I'm not aware of
> any
> > > difference in the end result, compared to the code-inlining approach
> that
> > > amalgamation takes.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> > > On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy  wrote:
> > > > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all self-serving
> > :)
> > > >
> > > > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the
> > original
> > > > work and make it better.
> > > >
> > > > -1 to remove at this point
> > > >
> > > > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up for
> > > > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry to chime in.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to
> > merge
> > > it
> > > > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would
> be
> > > great
> > > > > if someone from this thread can help to review.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > -tao
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Marco de Abreu 
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
> > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
> > > > >
> > > > > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other
> use
> > > cases?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Marco
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi., 11.
> Sep.
> > > 2019,
> > > > > 11:57:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Anirudh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that
> way
> > > to
> > > > > > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling
> > > > > > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the
> topic
> > of
> > > > > > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence
> the
> > > > > > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who
> > might
> > > > > > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
> > > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Junru Shao]

As Tianqi and Sheng mentioned, given the fact that we are able to do
deployment in a possibly better way (correct me if I was wrong), I would
love to +1 to Pedro’s proposal.

In the meantime, as a healthy open source community, I also agree with
Naveen’s point that we should do more homework for both our developers and
customers. IMHO, for example, it would be super helpful if Pedro may bring
up some documentation describing what is the “best practice” of using the
alternative of amalgamation, if our community agree to deprecate it.

Thank you guys so much for the discussion!

Junru

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 17:00 Tianqi Chen  wrote:

> The original amalgamation tries to generate a single file for compilation
> via a script.  This is largely un-necessary, having a file that include the
> dependent files and compile that one is relatively easy and sometimes more
> robust(without expanding everything into a single file).
>
> I think it might makes sense to deprecate and remove the current one given
> that it is no longer properly functioning. If someone is interested, create
> another deployment example that is more standalone without the file
> expansion. Here is an reference of the "new style" used in the tvm project
> https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/howto_deploy
>
> TQ
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sheng Zha  wrote:
>
> > As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to
> statically
> > link to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid of the
> > binary of unused functions? Though I don't know the full context of
> > amalgamation, based on my knowledge on this feature I'm not aware of any
> > difference in the end result, compared to the code-inlining approach that
> > amalgamation takes.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy  wrote:
> > > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all self-serving
> :)
> > >
> > > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the
> original
> > > work and make it better.
> > >
> > > -1 to remove at this point
> > >
> > > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up for
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry to chime in.
> > > >
> > > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to
> merge
> > it
> > > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would be
> > great
> > > > if someone from this thread can help to review.
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > -tao
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Marco de Abreu 
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
> > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
> > > >
> > > > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other use
> > cases?
> > > >
> > > > -Marco
> > > >
> > > > Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi., 11. Sep.
> > 2019,
> > > > 11:57:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Anirudh
> > > > >
> > > > > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that way
> > to
> > > > > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling
> > > > > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the topic
> of
> > > > > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence the
> > > > > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who
> might
> > > > > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedro.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian
> > > > >  > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for
> > > > > > justification
> > > > > for
> > > > > > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread
> where
> > I
> > > > > > see
> > > > > ad
> > > > > > hominems

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Tianqi Chen]

The original amalgamation tries to generate a single file for compilation
via a script.  This is largely un-necessary, having a file that include the
dependent files and compile that one is relatively easy and sometimes more
robust(without expanding everything into a single file).

I think it might makes sense to deprecate and remove the current one given
that it is no longer properly functioning. If someone is interested, create
another deployment example that is more standalone without the file
expansion. Here is an reference of the "new style" used in the tvm project
https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/howto_deploy

TQ

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sheng Zha  wrote:

> As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to statically
> link to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid of the
> binary of unused functions? Though I don't know the full context of
> amalgamation, based on my knowledge on this feature I'm not aware of any
> difference in the end result, compared to the code-inlining approach that
> amalgamation takes.
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy  wrote:
> > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all self-serving :)
> >
> > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the original
> > work and make it better.
> >
> > -1 to remove at this point
> >
> > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up for
> > discussion.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A  wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to chime in.
> > >
> > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to merge
> it
> > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would be
> great
> > > if someone from this thread can help to review.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > -tao
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Marco de Abreu 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
> > >
> > > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other use
> cases?
> > >
> > > -Marco
> > >
> > > Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi., 11. Sep.
> 2019,
> > > 11:57:
> > >
> > > > Hi Anirudh
> > > >
> > > > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that way
> to
> > > > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling
> > > > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the topic of
> > > > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence the
> > > > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who might
> > > > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Pedro.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian
> > > >  > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for
> > > > > justification
> > > > for
> > > > > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where
> I
> > > > > see
> > > > ad
> > > > > hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy
> > > > >  > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment
> > > > >> and destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take
> > > > >> action. It takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross
> > > > >> compiling with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or
> > > > >> "build.android_armv7". The only advantage of amalgamation is to
> > > > >> provide a smaller binary that we
> > > > could
> > > > >> accomplish with the C preprocessor.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting
> > > > >> MXNe

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Sheng Zha]

As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to statically link 
to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid of the binary of 
unused functions? Though I don't know the full context of amalgamation, based 
on my knowledge on this feature I'm not aware of any difference in the end 
result, compared to the code-inlining approach that amalgamation takes.

-sz

On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy  wrote: 
> so the original email suggesting to remove was after all self-serving :)
> 
> let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the original
> work and make it better.
> 
> -1 to remove at this point
> 
> P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up for
> discussion.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A  wrote:
> 
> > Sorry to chime in.
> >
> > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to merge it
> > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would be great
> > if someone from this thread can help to review.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
> >
> > thanks,
> > -tao
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marco de Abreu 
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
> >
> > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other use cases?
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> > Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi., 11. Sep. 2019,
> > 11:57:
> >
> > > Hi Anirudh
> > >
> > > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that way to
> > > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling
> > > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the topic of
> > > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence the
> > > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who might
> > > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Pedro.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian
> > >  > > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > >
> > > > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for
> > > > justification
> > > for
> > > > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where I
> > > > see
> > > ad
> > > > hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy
> > > >  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment
> > > >> and destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take
> > > >> action. It takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.
> > > >>
> > > >> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross
> > > >> compiling with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or
> > > >> "build.android_armv7". The only advantage of amalgamation is to
> > > >> provide a smaller binary that we
> > > could
> > > >> accomplish with the C preprocessor.
> > > >>
> > > >> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting
> > > >> MXNet
> > > to
> > > >> Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson,
> > > >> Raspberry Pi and Android amongst many other topics. I have never
> > > >> been disrespectful
> > > to
> > > >> anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about
> > > >> amalgamation or
> > > any
> > > >> other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to
> > > >> anyone
> > > and
> > > >> perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore,
> > > >> do
> > > us
> > > >> all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my
> > > >> respect,
> > > step
> > > >> up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others,
> > > >> this including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be
> > > >> positive
> > > and
> > > >> constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad
> > > >> on
> > > you.
&

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Naveen Swamy]

so the original email suggesting to remove was after all self-serving :)

let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the original
work and make it better.

-1 to remove at this point

P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up for
discussion.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A  wrote:

> Sorry to chime in.
>
> There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to merge it
> but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would be great
> if someone from this thread can help to review.
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
>
> thanks,
> -tao
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marco de Abreu 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
>
> Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other use cases?
>
> -Marco
>
> Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi., 11. Sep. 2019,
> 11:57:
>
> > Hi Anirudh
> >
> > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that way to
> > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling
> > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the topic of
> > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence the
> > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who might
> > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian
> >  > >
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Pedro,
> > >
> > > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for
> > > justification
> > for
> > > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where I
> > > see
> > ad
> > > hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy
> > >  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment
> > >> and destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take
> > >> action. It takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.
> > >>
> > >> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross
> > >> compiling with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or
> > >> "build.android_armv7". The only advantage of amalgamation is to
> > >> provide a smaller binary that we
> > could
> > >> accomplish with the C preprocessor.
> > >>
> > >> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting
> > >> MXNet
> > to
> > >> Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson,
> > >> Raspberry Pi and Android amongst many other topics. I have never
> > >> been disrespectful
> > to
> > >> anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about
> > >> amalgamation or
> > any
> > >> other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to
> > >> anyone
> > and
> > >> perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore,
> > >> do
> > us
> > >> all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my
> > >> respect,
> > step
> > >> up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others,
> > >> this including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be
> > >> positive
> > and
> > >> constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad
> > >> on
> > you.
> > >> I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or unasked for
> > technical
> > >> advice, which to be honest,  showing poor judgment and ignorance.
> > >> Myself and others have come up with numbers, graphs, metrics and
> > >> arguments and have been met with dismissal, trolling and
> > >> sea-lioning. I have recieved your insults via public and private
> > >> channels (such as linkedin) as have others. This is not ok and has
> > >> to stop. If you have something personal against me or against your
> > >> former employer, this is not the right place
> > or
> > >> forum.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > 

RE: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Lv, Tao A]

Sorry to chime in.

There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to merge it but I 
don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would be great if someone 
from this thread can help to review.

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303

thanks,
-tao

-Original Message-
From: Marco de Abreu  
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other use cases?

-Marco

Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi., 11. Sep. 2019,
11:57:

> Hi Anirudh
>
> Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that way to 
> you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling 
> something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the topic of 
> the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence the 
> original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who might 
> actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian 
>  >
> wrote:
> > Hi Pedro,
> >
> > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for 
> > justification
> for
> > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where I 
> > see
> ad
> > hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy 
> >  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment 
> >> and destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take 
> >> action. It takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.
> >>
> >> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross 
> >> compiling with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or 
> >> "build.android_armv7". The only advantage of amalgamation is to 
> >> provide a smaller binary that we
> could
> >> accomplish with the C preprocessor.
> >>
> >> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting 
> >> MXNet
> to
> >> Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson, 
> >> Raspberry Pi and Android amongst many other topics. I have never 
> >> been disrespectful
> to
> >> anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about 
> >> amalgamation or
> any
> >> other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to 
> >> anyone
> and
> >> perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore, 
> >> do
> us
> >> all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my 
> >> respect,
> step
> >> up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others, 
> >> this including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be 
> >> positive
> and
> >> constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad 
> >> on
> you.
> >> I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or unasked for
> technical
> >> advice, which to be honest,  showing poor judgment and ignorance. 
> >> Myself and others have come up with numbers, graphs, metrics and 
> >> arguments and have been met with dismissal, trolling and 
> >> sea-lioning. I have recieved your insults via public and private 
> >> channels (such as linkedin) as have others. This is not ok and has 
> >> to stop. If you have something personal against me or against your 
> >> former employer, this is not the right place
> or
> >> forum.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier 
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Pedro,
> >> >
> >> > While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in 
> >> > any
> way,
> >> > can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a
> "hacky
> >> > solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not
> supported
> >> > with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a 
> >> > good
> deal
> >> of
> >> > time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it 
> >> > worked
> for
> >> its
> >> > purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original 
> >> > javascript
> >> port
> >> > as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their 
> >> > efforts "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for understanding,
> >> >
> >> > -Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy <
> >> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi
> >> > >
> >> > > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and 
> >> > > CI,
> users
> >> > > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in 
> >> > > Android, and instead they were able to use the cross compiled 
> >> > > docker build
> >> > successfully.
> >> > >
> >> > > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
> >> > >
> >> > > Pedro.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Marco de Abreu]

Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other use cases?

-Marco

Pedro Larroy  schrieb am Mi., 11. Sep. 2019,
11:57:

> Hi Anirudh
>
> Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that way to you,
> I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling something hacky
> is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the topic of the discussion. It
> was reported as not working by users, hence the original thread. It was a
> request for opinions from people who might actually have tried to work in
> Mxnet on Android.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian  >
> wrote:
> > Hi Pedro,
> >
> > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for justification
> for
> > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where I see
> ad
> > hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment and
> >> destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take action. It
> >> takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.
> >>
> >> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross compiling
> >> with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or "build.android_armv7". The
> >> only advantage of amalgamation is to provide a smaller binary that we
> could
> >> accomplish with the C preprocessor.
> >>
> >> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting MXNet
> to
> >> Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson, Raspberry Pi
> >> and Android amongst many other topics. I have never been disrespectful
> to
> >> anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about amalgamation or
> any
> >> other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to anyone
> and
> >> perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore, do
> us
> >> all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my respect,
> step
> >> up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others, this
> >> including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be positive
> and
> >> constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad on
> you.
> >> I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or unasked for
> technical
> >> advice, which to be honest,  showing poor judgment and ignorance. Myself
> >> and others have come up with numbers, graphs, metrics and arguments and
> >> have been met with dismissal, trolling and sea-lioning. I have recieved
> >> your insults via public and private channels (such as linkedin) as have
> >> others. This is not ok and has to stop. If you have something personal
> >> against me or against your former employer, this is not the right place
> or
> >> forum.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Pedro,
> >> >
> >> > While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any
> way,
> >> > can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a
> "hacky
> >> > solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not
> supported
> >> > with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good
> deal
> >> of
> >> > time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked
> for
> >> its
> >> > purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript
> >> port
> >> > as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
> >> > "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for understanding,
> >> >
> >> > -Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy <
> >> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi
> >> > >
> >> > > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI,
> users
> >> > > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
> >> > > instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build
> >> > successfully.
> >> > >
> >> > > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
> >> > >
> >> > > Pedro.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Pedro Larroy]

Hi Anirudh

Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that way to you,
I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling something hacky
is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the topic of the discussion. It
was reported as not working by users, hence the original thread. It was a
request for opinions from people who might actually have tried to work in
Mxnet on Android.

Thanks.

Pedro.


On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian 
wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for justification for
> you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where I see
ad
> hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy 
> wrote:
>
>> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment and
>> destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take action. It
>> takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.
>>
>> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross compiling
>> with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or "build.android_armv7". The
>> only advantage of amalgamation is to provide a smaller binary that we
could
>> accomplish with the C preprocessor.
>>
>> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting MXNet
to
>> Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson, Raspberry Pi
>> and Android amongst many other topics. I have never been disrespectful to
>> anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about amalgamation or
any
>> other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to anyone
and
>> perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore, do us
>> all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my respect,
step
>> up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others, this
>> including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be positive and
>> constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad on you.
>> I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or unasked for technical
>> advice, which to be honest,  showing poor judgment and ignorance. Myself
>> and others have come up with numbers, graphs, metrics and arguments and
>> have been met with dismissal, trolling and sea-lioning. I have recieved
>> your insults via public and private channels (such as linkedin) as have
>> others. This is not ok and has to stop. If you have something personal
>> against me or against your former employer, this is not the right place
or
>> forum.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Pedro,
>> >
>> > While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any
way,
>> > can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky
>> > solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not
supported
>> > with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good
deal
>> of
>> > time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for
>> its
>> > purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript
>> port
>> > as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
>> > "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
>> >
>> > Thanks for understanding,
>> >
>> > -Chris
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy <
>> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi
>> > >
>> > > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI,
users
>> > > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
>> > > instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build
>> > successfully.
>> > >
>> > > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
>> > >
>> > > Pedro.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Skalicky, Sam]

Heres some foundation for “hacky” in computer science:

Calling a piece of code hacky isn’t the same as saying it’s bad, the code just 
doesn’t have infrastructure around it. You can probably already piece together 
why they call hackers hackers, and hackathons hackathons — hacks just need to 
run once. The whole goal of hacking is to succeed once.

Most big companies started with a hacky solution. Twitter’s hack was literally 
input.truncate(140) in the language it was written in (Ruby). Instagram was an 
image filtering app. OKCupid was a questionnaire. Reddit started with posts and 
comments in the same database table.

By contrast, not hacky code has thorough tests, runs in different environments, 
and generally supports a team of developers working on it. It’s in a shared 
repository somewhere, carefully maintained like a zen garden. When your 
software needs to run for two, three, or ten years… you can reuse some concept 
from a hacky prototype, but it can’t stay hacky.

https://medium.com/@tholex/what-is-hacky-code-18308018fc33

Thinks being hacky isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it might not have been the 
goal at the time to flush out all the possibilities and productionize the code 
into a zen garden. However, we shouldn’t remove code just because its hacky 
either.

Sam

On Sep 10, 2019, at 9:14 AM, Anirudh Subramanian 
mailto:anirudh2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Pedro,

I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for justification for
you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where I see ad
hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy 
mailto:pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment and
destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take action. It
takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.

The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross compiling
with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or "build.android_armv7". The
only advantage of amalgamation is to provide a smaller binary that we could
accomplish with the C preprocessor.

My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting MXNet to
Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson, Raspberry Pi
and Android amongst many other topics. I have never been disrespectful to
anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about amalgamation or any
other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to anyone and
perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore, do us
all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my respect, step
up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others, this
including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be positive and
constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad on you.
I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or unasked for technical
advice, which to be honest,  showing poor judgment and ignorance. Myself
and others have come up with numbers, graphs, metrics and arguments and
have been met with dismissal, trolling and sea-lioning. I have recieved
your insults via public and private channels (such as linkedin) as have
others. This is not ok and has to stop. If you have something personal
against me or against your former employer, this is not the right place or
forum.















On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier 
mailto:cjolivie...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Hi Pedro,

While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any way,
can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky
solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not supported
with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good deal
of
time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for
its
purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript
port
as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
"hacky".  Please respect what came before.

Thanks for understanding,

-Chris


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy <
pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi

I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users
have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build
successfully.

Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?

Pedro.

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Anirudh Subramanian]

Hi Pedro,

I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for justification for
you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread where I see ad
hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy 
wrote:

> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment and
> destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take action. It
> takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.
>
> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross compiling
> with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or "build.android_armv7". The
> only advantage of amalgamation is to provide a smaller binary that we could
> accomplish with the C preprocessor.
>
> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting MXNet to
> Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson, Raspberry Pi
> and Android amongst many other topics. I have never been disrespectful to
> anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about amalgamation or any
> other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to anyone and
> perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore, do us
> all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my respect, step
> up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others, this
> including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be positive and
> constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad on you.
> I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or unasked for technical
> advice, which to be honest,  showing poor judgment and ignorance. Myself
> and others have come up with numbers, graphs, metrics and arguments and
> have been met with dismissal, trolling and sea-lioning. I have recieved
> your insults via public and private channels (such as linkedin) as have
> others. This is not ok and has to stop. If you have something personal
> against me or against your former employer, this is not the right place or
> forum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pedro,
> >
> > While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any way,
> > can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky
> > solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not supported
> > with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good deal
> of
> > time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for
> its
> > purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript
> port
> > as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
> > "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
> >
> > Thanks for understanding,
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy <
> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users
> > > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
> > > instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build
> > successfully.
> > >
> > > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
> > >
> > > Pedro.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Pedro Larroy]

Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident harassment and
destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions and take action. It
takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.

The mobile solution that is known to work as of know is cross compiling
with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8" or "build.android_armv7". The
only advantage of amalgamation is to provide a smaller binary that we could
accomplish with the C preprocessor.

My technical contributions speak for themselves, including porting MXNet to
Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in Jetson, Raspberry Pi
and Android amongst many other topics. I have never been disrespectful to
anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about amalgamation or any
other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal disrespect to anyone and
perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this project anymore, do us
all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you want my respect, step
up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage others, this
including commits, I haven't seen for many months, please be positive and
constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only reflecting bad on you.
I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or unasked for technical
advice, which to be honest,  showing poor judgment and ignorance. Myself
and others have come up with numbers, graphs, metrics and arguments and
have been met with dismissal, trolling and sea-lioning. I have recieved
your insults via public and private channels (such as linkedin) as have
others. This is not ok and has to stop. If you have something personal
against me or against your former employer, this is not the right place or
forum.















On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier  wrote:

> Hi Pedro,
>
> While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any way,
> can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky
> solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not supported
> with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good deal of
> time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for its
> purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript port
> as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
> "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
>
> Thanks for understanding,
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users
> > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
> > instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build
> successfully.
> >
> > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Aaron Markham]

I went down the path for this and was disuaded by the errors I had and the
open issues about the same errors. It's one thing to leave something around
that works, but another to leave something around that wastes a lot of time
and causes abandonment.

The project needs a mobile solution. What's there doesn't cut it, IMO. It
needs some love...


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 17:27 Naveen Swamy  wrote:

> +1.
> I have heard this before elsewhere if you don't understand the code, give
> it a name like "hacky", "does not follow the pattern",  "unmaintainable",
> etc., may all that be true but it does not help making cliched and
> disrespectful comments about someone else's contributions.
> the code is not going on a ramp walk for a beauty contest.  Instead of
> subscribing to such software fallacies, it would help the community to make
> a decision if concrete examples of limitations, drawbacks, missing features
> are given.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pedro,
> >
> > While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any way,
> > can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky
> > solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not supported
> > with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good deal
> of
> > time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for
> its
> > purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript
> port
> > as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
> > "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
> >
> > Thanks for understanding,
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy <
> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users
> > > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
> > > instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build
> > successfully.
> > >
> > > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
> > >
> > > Pedro.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Naveen Swamy]

+1.
I have heard this before elsewhere if you don't understand the code, give
it a name like "hacky", "does not follow the pattern",  "unmaintainable",
etc., may all that be true but it does not help making cliched and
disrespectful comments about someone else's contributions.
the code is not going on a ramp walk for a beauty contest.  Instead of
subscribing to such software fallacies, it would help the community to make
a decision if concrete examples of limitations, drawbacks, missing features
are given.



On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier  wrote:

> Hi Pedro,
>
> While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any way,
> can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky
> solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not supported
> with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good deal of
> time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for its
> purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript port
> as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
> "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
>
> Thanks for understanding,
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users
> > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
> > instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build
> successfully.
> >
> > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Marco de Abreu]

I can recall that we had quite a few issues where people tried to use
amalgamation. Have we identified these use cases so far and documented the
alternative.

I think the compilation only takes a few seconds and I think we also have
some nightly tests for it. So far it seemed very low maintenance, so I'd
lean towards keeping it. But if there's literally nobody using it and it's
no longer useful, I'm happy to see it removed.

Do we have some data on amalgamation usage?

-Marco


Chris Olivier  schrieb am Sa., 7. Sep. 2019, 00:56:

> Hi Pedro,
>
> While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any way,
> can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky
> solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not supported
> with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good deal of
> time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for its
> purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript port
> as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
> "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
>
> Thanks for understanding,
>
> -Chris
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users
> > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
> > instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build
> successfully.
> >
> > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Chris Olivier]

Hi Pedro,

While I was not involved with amalgamation or its development in any way,
can you please refrain from referring to the work of others as a "hacky
solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement was not supported
with any justification for such name-calling.  Someone spent a good deal of
time on this solution at some point in time and I am sure it worked for its
purpose at that time -- I think it was used in the original javascript port
as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to call their efforts
"hacky".  Please respect what came before.

Thanks for understanding,

-Chris


On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy 
wrote:

> Hi
>
> I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users
> have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
> instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build successfully.
>
> Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?
>
> Pedro.
>

[DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

[Pedro Larroy]

Hi

I would like to propose to remove amalgamation from MXNet and CI, users
have reported that they couldn't use it successfully in Android, and
instead they were able to use the cross compiled docker build successfully.

Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky solution?

Pedro.