Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Sheng Zha]

Thanks for making me aware of the issue. I started the fix here [1].

And thanks to Qing Lan and Zach Kimberg for pinging me and helping with 
isolating the problem.

-sz

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14148

On 2019/02/13 19:45:41, Aaron Markham  wrote: 
> Sheng, thanks for being so proactive, but adding license headers to
> the markdown files in #14142 breaks the website as I warned. I caught
> it before it went live.
> I've disabled website publishing until this situation is resolved.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:59 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:
> >
> > Update: All license issues mentioned in the general vote from Luciano (pom
> > files, docker files, docs) have been fixed on master [1][2].
> >
> > Let me know if there's more to address.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14142
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:54 AM Michael Wall  wrote:
> >
> > > So is the plan option 3?  I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good 
> > > work
> > > there.  When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not
> > > waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing.  Get as
> > > many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on
> > > to IPMC.  The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72
> > > hours.  I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to
> > > the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it 
> > > is
> > > out.  The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then
> > > negative as soon as the 72 hours hits.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > forgot to CC dev
> > > >
> > > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Justin Mclean 
> > > > > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating)
> > > > version 1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> > > > > To: Michael Wall 
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > >> Option 1:
> > > > >> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Option 2:
> > > > >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the
> > > > original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > It may end up with the same outcome.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Option 3:
> > > > >> 1 - Fix the header issues.
> > > > > 
> > > > >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new
> > > > vote thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 
> > > > > +1
> > > > IPMC votes.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache
> > > > product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not
> > > tied
> > > > to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased
> > > > version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time 
> > > > ahead
> > > > of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably
> > > > wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to
> > > > check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take
> > > > the last good release and go with that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Aaron Markham]

Sheng, thanks for being so proactive, but adding license headers to
the markdown files in #14142 breaks the website as I warned. I caught
it before it went live.
I've disabled website publishing until this situation is resolved.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:59 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:
>
> Update: All license issues mentioned in the general vote from Luciano (pom
> files, docker files, docs) have been fixed on master [1][2].
>
> Let me know if there's more to address.
>
> -sz
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138
> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14142
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:54 AM Michael Wall  wrote:
>
> > So is the plan option 3?  I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good work
> > there.  When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not
> > waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing.  Get as
> > many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on
> > to IPMC.  The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72
> > hours.  I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to
> > the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it is
> > out.  The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then
> > negative as soon as the 72 hours hits.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > forgot to CC dev
> > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > From: Justin Mclean 
> > > > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating)
> > > version 1.4.0.rc2
> > > > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> > > > To: Michael Wall 
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >> Option 1:
> > > >> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> > > >
> > > > I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> > > >
> > > >> Option 2:
> > > >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the
> > > original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.
> > > >
> > > > It may end up with the same outcome.
> > > >
> > > >> Option 3:
> > > >> 1 - Fix the header issues.
> > > > 
> > > >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new
> > > vote thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 +1
> > > IPMC votes.
> > > >
> > > >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.
> > > >
> > > > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache
> > > product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not
> > tied
> > > to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased
> > > version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time ahead
> > > of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably
> > > wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to
> > > check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take
> > > the last good release and go with that.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > >
> > >
> >

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Sheng Zha]

Update: All license issues mentioned in the general vote from Luciano (pom
files, docker files, docs) have been fixed on master [1][2].

Let me know if there's more to address.

-sz

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14142

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:54 AM Michael Wall  wrote:

> So is the plan option 3?  I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good work
> there.  When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not
> waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing.  Get as
> many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on
> to IPMC.  The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72
> hours.  I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to
> the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it is
> out.  The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then
> negative as soon as the 72 hours hits.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > forgot to CC dev
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: Justin Mclean 
> > > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating)
> > version 1.4.0.rc2
> > > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> > > To: Michael Wall 
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >> Option 1:
> > >> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> > >
> > > I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> > >
> > >> Option 2:
> > >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the
> > original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.
> > >
> > > It may end up with the same outcome.
> > >
> > >> Option 3:
> > >> 1 - Fix the header issues.
> > > 
> > >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new
> > vote thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> > >
> > > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 +1
> > IPMC votes.
> > >
> > >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.
> > >
> > > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache
> > product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not
> tied
> > to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased
> > version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time ahead
> > of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably
> > wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to
> > check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take
> > the last good release and go with that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> >
> >
>

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Michael Wall]

So is the plan option 3?  I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good work
there.  When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not
waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing.  Get as
many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on
to IPMC.  The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72
hours.  I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to
the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it is
out.  The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then
negative as soon as the 72 hours hits.

Mike

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> forgot to CC dev
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Justin Mclean 
> > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating)
> version 1.4.0.rc2
> > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> > To: Michael Wall 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Option 1:
> >> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> >
> > I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> >
> >> Option 2:
> >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the
> original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.
> >
> > It may end up with the same outcome.
> >
> >> Option 3:
> >> 1 - Fix the header issues.
> > 
> >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new
> vote thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> >
> > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 +1
> IPMC votes.
> >
> >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.
> >
> > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache
> product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not tied
> to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased
> version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time ahead
> of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably
> wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to
> check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take
> the last good release and go with that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
>
>

Fwd: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Justin Mclean]

forgot to CC dev

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Justin Mclean 
> Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 
> 1.4.0.rc2
> Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> To: Michael Wall 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Option 1:
>> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> 
> I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> 
>> Option 2: 
>> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the original 
>> vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread. 
> 
> It may end up with the same outcome.
> 
>> Option 3:
>> 1 - Fix the header issues.  
> 
>> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new vote 
>> thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> 
> Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 +1 IPMC 
> votes.
> 
>> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.  
> 
> Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache product. 
> IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not tied to their 
> milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased version of ASF 
> software, you should started the release a long time ahead of time just in 
> case problems were encountered issues.This probably wouldn't be an issue if 
> you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to check compliance with 
> frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take the last good release and 
> go with that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Sheng Zha]

Thanks for the detailed explanation and the help on educating the community, 
Michael.

People on the general list are spending time to help us get the licensing 
right. If possible, I think we should be thankful by treating their feedbacks 
more seriously, making the efforts to quickly fix the problem, and getting our 
release out when ready. Fixes for the issues found during the release are 
already going in as we speak [1][2][3].

One thing that the community can benefit from is the clarity on what file types 
we should remove from the rat-excludes file that we have [4], so that we make 
the project compliant with the release policy once for all.

-sz

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14141
[3] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14043
[4] 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes

On 2019/02/13 01:14:07, Michael Wall  wrote: 
> Hi Qing,
> 
> I see 3 options
> 
> Option 1:
> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.  Steffen counted the
> binding votes from the before it was restarted.  Unsure if that actually
> works.  There has been one +1 votes since the restart, but it is
> non-binding as best I can tell even though it labeled as binding.  To be a
> binding vote for the general@incubator.a.o VOTE you must be on the
> Incubator PMC or IPMC.  Users on the MXNet Podling PMC or PPMC have a
> binding vote only on the dev@mxnet VOTE thread.   See
> https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases.  In addition,
> those binding +1 votes may need to be changes based on
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval which reads
> 
> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
> own platform."
> 
> Luciano's -1 was because the release does not meet the licensing policy at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
> 
> For this reason, I can not give a +1 on the general@incubator.a.o VOTE
> thread.  Sorry, that is why I have not voted.
> 
> Option 2:
> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the original
> vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.  Likely that
> need to be open for 72 hours unless the IPMC agrees otherwise.  I list this
> because I don't know if a RESTART recounting votes from a prior thread is
> valid.  But this option has the same risk of not being approved for the
> reasons listed above.
> 
> Option 3:
> 1 - Fix the header issues.  I dug a little more, and the excludes file at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.4.x/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes
> is
> overly broad and excludes files from the check that should have license
> headers, again per
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
> 2 - Start a vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o.  Doesn't have to be open 72 hours
> according to Justin's note if the PPMC agrees.  Expect this would need to
> be documented on the mailing list, but could be part of the vote I think.
> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new vote
> thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> 
> Clearly option 1 would be faster, but the risk is the vote not passing.
> Option 2 may not be needed if the restart in option 1 is valid.  Option 3
> is the most correct I think according to what I read in ASF policy.  But
> rushing a vote does have risks, such as less testing on the code being
> released.
> 
> To make this more confusing, the VOTE thread is showing up on both
> dev@mxnet.a.o and general@incubator.a.o.  There is an additional +1 vote on
> the dev@mxnet.a.o list that doesn't show up on the general@incubator, but
> this too is non binding best I can tell.
> 
> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.  Nothing in ASF policy
> makes allowances for such an event that I could find.  Perhaps we should
> ask for more clarification on general@incubator.a.o to get more thoughts
> from the IPMC.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:53 PM Qing Lan  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Could you please guide how to proceed with this? Given that we have a
> > possibility of announcing MXNet support in Horovod with their next release
> > and this would help MXNet increase our visibility.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Qing
> >
> > On 2/12/19, 2:16 PM, "Michael Wall"  wrote:
> >
> > Team,
> >
> > Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.
> > Justin's
> > point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the
> > reasons he
> > outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue
> > Luciano
> > found needs 

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Zhao, Patric]

Update, the issue is fixed and the new patch release is out MKL-DNN 0.17.4.

Tao filed a PR to update the MKLDNN version in the release 1.4.X
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14141

Thanks all of your helps :)

--Patric


> -Original Message-
> From: Zhao, Patric [mailto:patric.z...@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 11:53 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Lv, Tao A ; Ye, Jason Y 
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2
> 
> Hi Sheng,
> 
> Thanks to raise this important issues. Sorry for the lack of validation since 
> we
> don't have mac machine with earlier OS version in house.
> 
> I will contact with MKL-DNN team for the supports of earlier versions of OSX
> but I'm a little afraid the fix needs some extra-time.
> 
> Alternatively, several workarounds in my thoughts (I know it's not the perfect
> solution):
> 
> * using LLVM which can work crossing HW/OS generation
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-
> mxnet/blob/master/MKLDNN_README.md#2
> 
> * provide the binary build for different HW/OS like cuda, mxnet-cu90/92
> 
> * disable MKLDNN supports for earlier versions of HW/OS in MAC, only
> mxnet build.
> 
> I will update the status when get the feedback and schedule from MKL-DNN
> team.
> 
> Feel free to let us know if anything we can help.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Patric
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sheng Zha [mailto:szha@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 10:33 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> > 1.4.0.rc2
> >
> > Also, recent MKLDNN upgrade prevents us from offering binary
> > distribution for earlier versions of OSX, as it now requires OSX
> > 10.13. This means we would need to drop the binary distribution
> > support for OSX 10.11 and 10.12 if we are to keep mkldnn as a
> > dependency for mxnet-mkl. I'm inquiring whether Intel could extend the
> > compatibility to earlier OSX [1], but even if this is solved upstream it 
> > would
> require an update on the mkldnn submodule.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn/issues/405
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:47 PM Anirudh Subramanian
> > 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -0
> > >
> > > Thanks Steffen for your release efforts !
> > >
> > > Build from source works with make but fails with cmake for me.
> > >
> > >  cd build && cmake VERBOSE=1 -DUSE_CUDA=ON -DUSE_CUDNN=ON
> > > -DUSE_OPENMP=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -
> > DUSE_DIST_KVSTORE=0
> > > -DUSE_OPENCV=1 -GNinja .. && ninja -v
> > >
> > > FAILED: : && /usr/bin/c++   -Wall -Wno-unknown-pragmas -fPIC -g -O0 -
> > msse2
> > > -std=c++11 -fopenmp -g  -pthread
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_lockfree.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_param.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_parser.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_array_view.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_any.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_config.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_threaditer.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_serializer.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_threaditer_exc_handling.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_inputsplit.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_logging.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
> > > te
> > > st_json.cc.o
> > >
> > > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unit
&g

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Aaron Markham]

I think I misunderstood the 3rd party reference to imply Uber instead
of the 3rd party folder. I feel the same regardless, and defer to the
experts on what do do about the 3rd party folder.

As for the other license issues, we don't have to add license info to
readme or informational files. It is specifically called out as an
exception [1]:

"Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:
Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
relate to.
Test data for which the addition of a source header would cause the
tests to fail.
'Snippet' files that are combined as form a larger file where the
larger file would have duplicate licensing headers."

I certainly wouldn't add headers to the markdown files as this would
create havoc in the website rendering until that is configured to
handle it. Besides, we're covered on these file as we have an Apache
copyright footer on the website. Also from the Apache page on headers
[1]:

"...Our web sites do not have an associated NOTICE file. Instead we
may soon be making the terms of such content explicit through a "Terms
of Use" or "Legal Information" link in the footer of web pages. At
this point, no action is required for Apache web sites."

I can think of a few examples where markdown files are not rendered on
the website, but as they're informational text files they're "obvious
which product they relate to" and therefore I think they can be
excluded.

I looked at the rat-exclude, and if pom.xml files (for example) are
supposed to have licenses, then we should probably add that and
tighten up the excludes for .*xml. But if we can do that in the next
release, that would be great. (I'm not sure how to gauge the
importance of these license headers vis-a-vis project usability.) Not
to muddy the waters, by why is the R package excluded entirely?

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers

Cheers,
Aaron

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:23 PM Michael Wall  wrote:
>
> Hi Qing,
>
> I see 3 options
>
> Option 1:
> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.  Steffen counted the
> binding votes from the before it was restarted.  Unsure if that actually
> works.  There has been one +1 votes since the restart, but it is
> non-binding as best I can tell even though it labeled as binding.  To be a
> binding vote for the general@incubator.a.o VOTE you must be on the
> Incubator PMC or IPMC.  Users on the MXNet Podling PMC or PPMC have a
> binding vote only on the dev@mxnet VOTE thread.   See
> https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases.  In addition,
> those binding +1 votes may need to be changes based on
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval which reads
>
> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
> own platform."
>
> Luciano's -1 was because the release does not meet the licensing policy at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
>
> For this reason, I can not give a +1 on the general@incubator.a.o VOTE
> thread.  Sorry, that is why I have not voted.
>
> Option 2:
> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the original
> vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.  Likely that
> need to be open for 72 hours unless the IPMC agrees otherwise.  I list this
> because I don't know if a RESTART recounting votes from a prior thread is
> valid.  But this option has the same risk of not being approved for the
> reasons listed above.
>
> Option 3:
> 1 - Fix the header issues.  I dug a little more, and the excludes file at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.4.x/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes
> is
> overly broad and excludes files from the check that should have license
> headers, again per
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
> 2 - Start a vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o.  Doesn't have to be open 72 hours
> according to Justin's note if the PPMC agrees.  Expect this would need to
> be documented on the mailing list, but could be part of the vote I think.
> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new vote
> thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
>
> Clearly option 1 would be faster, but the risk is the vote not passing.
> Option 2 may not be needed if the restart in option 1 is valid.  Option 3
> is the most correct I think according to what I read in ASF policy.  But
> rushing a vote does have risks, such as less testing on the code being
> released.
>
> To make this more confusing, the VOTE thread is showing up on both
> dev@mxnet.a.o and general@incubator.a.o.  There is an 

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Michael Wall]

Hi Qing,

I see 3 options

Option 1:
Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.  Steffen counted the
binding votes from the before it was restarted.  Unsure if that actually
works.  There has been one +1 votes since the restart, but it is
non-binding as best I can tell even though it labeled as binding.  To be a
binding vote for the general@incubator.a.o VOTE you must be on the
Incubator PMC or IPMC.  Users on the MXNet Podling PMC or PPMC have a
binding vote only on the dev@mxnet VOTE thread.   See
https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases.  In addition,
those binding +1 votes may need to be changes based on
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval which reads

"Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
own platform."

Luciano's -1 was because the release does not meet the licensing policy at
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers

For this reason, I can not give a +1 on the general@incubator.a.o VOTE
thread.  Sorry, that is why I have not voted.

Option 2:
Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the original
vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.  Likely that
need to be open for 72 hours unless the IPMC agrees otherwise.  I list this
because I don't know if a RESTART recounting votes from a prior thread is
valid.  But this option has the same risk of not being approved for the
reasons listed above.

Option 3:
1 - Fix the header issues.  I dug a little more, and the excludes file at
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.4.x/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes
is
overly broad and excludes files from the check that should have license
headers, again per
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
2 - Start a vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o.  Doesn't have to be open 72 hours
according to Justin's note if the PPMC agrees.  Expect this would need to
be documented on the mailing list, but could be part of the vote I think.
3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new vote
thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.

Clearly option 1 would be faster, but the risk is the vote not passing.
Option 2 may not be needed if the restart in option 1 is valid.  Option 3
is the most correct I think according to what I read in ASF policy.  But
rushing a vote does have risks, such as less testing on the code being
released.

To make this more confusing, the VOTE thread is showing up on both
dev@mxnet.a.o and general@incubator.a.o.  There is an additional +1 vote on
the dev@mxnet.a.o list that doesn't show up on the general@incubator, but
this too is non binding best I can tell.

Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.  Nothing in ASF policy
makes allowances for such an event that I could find.  Perhaps we should
ask for more clarification on general@incubator.a.o to get more thoughts
from the IPMC.

Mike

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:53 PM Qing Lan  wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> Could you please guide how to proceed with this? Given that we have a
> possibility of announcing MXNet support in Horovod with their next release
> and this would help MXNet increase our visibility.
>
> Thanks,
> Qing
>
> On 2/12/19, 2:16 PM, "Michael Wall"  wrote:
>
> Team,
>
> Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.
> Justin's
> point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the
> reasons he
> outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue
> Luciano
> found needs to be addressed.
>
> That issue is that there are files in MXNet source tree that do not
> have
> the required licenses headers,
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers.  For
> example, the top level README.md is missing the header
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/master/README.md.
> Excluding 3rd party files from the RAT check is fine, but not files
> originating from the MXNet repo.
>
> It would be good to know exactly how Luciano ran the RAT check, cc'd.
> Here
> is a link to the thread
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> .
>
> Justin's other point, aIso cc'd, was that the vote with the podling
> doesn't
> have to take 72 hours before going to the incubator list.
>
> I realize this is not what everyone is pushing for, so interested in
> other's thoughts.  Especially other mentors.
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM Aaron Markham <
> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > I disagree about 3rd party 

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Qing Lan]

Hi Michael, 

Could you please guide how to proceed with this? Given that we have a 
possibility of announcing MXNet support in Horovod with their next release and 
this would help MXNet increase our visibility.

Thanks,
Qing

On 2/12/19, 2:16 PM, "Michael Wall"  wrote:

Team,

Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.  Justin's
point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the reasons he
outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue Luciano
found needs to be addressed.

That issue is that there are files in MXNet source tree that do not have
the required licenses headers,
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers.  For
example, the top level README.md is missing the header
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/master/README.md.
Excluding 3rd party files from the RAT check is fine, but not files
originating from the MXNet repo.

It would be good to know exactly how Luciano ran the RAT check, cc'd.  Here
is a link to the thread

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
.

Justin's other point, aIso cc'd, was that the vote with the podling doesn't
have to take 72 hours before going to the incubator list.

I realize this is not what everyone is pushing for, so interested in
other's thoughts.  Especially other mentors.

Mike

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM Aaron Markham 
wrote:

> +1
> I disagree about 3rd party considerations. This is an ecosystem after all.
> The distributed training story is quite nice with Horovod. Given my
> interaction with tensorflow with  Horovod and dynamic training with MXNet
> and the kvstore, this new route is, IMO, easier to setup and manage.
> I see the benefit for getting it out there sooner than later, and market
> timings are important to the project and adoption. If Uber's announcement
> drives traffic to MXNet, but then people can't set it up with a stable
> release package, there's a lost opportunity for growing the community. Why
> miss the opportunity for a RAT license?
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 13:14 Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> > Hi -
> >
> > Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1 with
> > your Apache hat on or your Amazon hat?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > > On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 binding
> > > Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
> > > integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the
> dependencies
> > > for Horovod integration.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Lin
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear community -
> > >> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart 
the
> > >> vote.
> > >> Current status:
> > >> binding votes:
> > >> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
> > >> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
> > >>
> > >> non-binding:
> > >> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
> > >>
> > >> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the
> exclusion
> > >> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must 
have
> > >> apache license headers not to be checked.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Steffen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of
> > cancelling
> > >>> it?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean <
> > jus...@classsoftware.com
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind
> can
> > >> be
> >  changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> > 
> >  Thanks,
> >  Justin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> -
> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Michael Wall]

Team,

Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.  Justin's
point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the reasons he
outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue Luciano
found needs to be addressed.

That issue is that there are files in MXNet source tree that do not have
the required licenses headers,
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers.  For
example, the top level README.md is missing the header
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/master/README.md.
Excluding 3rd party files from the RAT check is fine, but not files
originating from the MXNet repo.

It would be good to know exactly how Luciano ran the RAT check, cc'd.  Here
is a link to the thread
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
.

Justin's other point, aIso cc'd, was that the vote with the podling doesn't
have to take 72 hours before going to the incubator list.

I realize this is not what everyone is pushing for, so interested in
other's thoughts.  Especially other mentors.

Mike

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM Aaron Markham 
wrote:

> +1
> I disagree about 3rd party considerations. This is an ecosystem after all.
> The distributed training story is quite nice with Horovod. Given my
> interaction with tensorflow with  Horovod and dynamic training with MXNet
> and the kvstore, this new route is, IMO, easier to setup and manage.
> I see the benefit for getting it out there sooner than later, and market
> timings are important to the project and adoption. If Uber's announcement
> drives traffic to MXNet, but then people can't set it up with a stable
> release package, there's a lost opportunity for growing the community. Why
> miss the opportunity for a RAT license?
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 13:14 Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> > Hi -
> >
> > Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1 with
> > your Apache hat on or your Amazon hat?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > > On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 binding
> > > Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
> > > integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the
> dependencies
> > > for Horovod integration.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Lin
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear community -
> > >> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart the
> > >> vote.
> > >> Current status:
> > >> binding votes:
> > >> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
> > >> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
> > >>
> > >> non-binding:
> > >> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
> > >>
> > >> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the
> exclusion
> > >> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must have
> > >> apache license headers not to be checked.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Steffen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of
> > cancelling
> > >>> it?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean <
> > jus...@classsoftware.com
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind
> can
> > >> be
> >  changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> > 
> >  Thanks,
> >  Justin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> -
> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1 with your 
Apache hat on or your Amazon hat?

Regards,
Dave

> On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan  wrote:
> 
> +1 binding
> Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
> integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the dependencies
> for Horovod integration.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lin
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear community -
>> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart the
>> vote.
>> Current status:
>> binding votes:
>> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
>> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
>> 
>> non-binding:
>> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
>> 
>> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the exclusion
>> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must have
>> apache license headers not to be checked.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Steffen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko  wrote:
>> 
>>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of cancelling
>>> it?
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean >> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi,
 
 In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind can
>> be
 changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
 
 Thanks,
 Justin
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Lin Yuan]

+1 binding
Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the dependencies
for Horovod integration.

Best,

Lin

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel 
wrote:

> Dear community -
> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart the
> vote.
> Current status:
> binding votes:
> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
>
> non-binding:
> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
>
> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the exclusion
> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must have
> apache license headers not to be checked.
>
> Regards,
> Steffen
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko  wrote:
>
> > Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of cancelling
> > it?
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind can
> be
> > > changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

[RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Steffen Rochel]

Dear community -
based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart the vote.
Current status:
binding votes:
+1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
-1:  1 vote (Luciano)

non-binding:
+1: 1 vote (Kellen)

The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the exclusion
file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must have
apache license headers not to be checked.

Regards,
Steffen




On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko  wrote:

> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of cancelling
> it?
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind can be
> > changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[sandeep krishnamurthy]

I do believe in the benefit of MXNet community, MXNet 1.4  is a important
release with many useful features for our users:

1. Java Inference API, JVM memory management, Julia APIs
2. Multiple important directional experimental features - Subgraph API,
control flow operators, Topology aware all-reduce approach in distributed
training
3. Enhancing so many user touching functionalities - ONNX operator
coverage, new operators like trigonometric operators, Debugging operators
4. 75+ bug fixes
5. Documentation, tutorials, examples updates and issue fixes

*RAT check failures is important and we will fix it up soon in the
following release*. Holding off the release will further delay so many
useful features for users through a stable release. In my opinion, it would
be beneficial for MXNet community to make this release happen.

Best,
Sandeep
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:37 PM Qing Lan  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Can we move the VOTE forward since the RAT license should not be a problem
> that block the release. We can always add that one in our future releases
> (e.g 1.4.1 or 1.5.0).
>
> As you may aware, 1.4.0 release started very early this year and delayed a
> couple of times until now. From the Apache Release process:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html, it should be fine for us
> to move forward if majority provide +1 than -1.
>
> Again, move forward does not mean we should not fix it or ignore problems
> that exist in the code. We will address and fix them in the next release.
>
> Thanks,
> Qing
>
> On 2/10/19, 10:28 PM, "Steffen Rochel"  wrote:
>
> Dear community -
> I'm cancelling the vote due to -1 feedback from Luciano due to RAT
> failures.
> For details see
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> The MXNet community will discuss next steps.
>
> Regards,
> Steffen
>
>
>

-- 
Sandeep Krishnamurthy

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Qing Lan]

Hi All,

Can we move the VOTE forward since the RAT license should not be a problem that 
block the release. We can always add that one in our future releases (e.g 1.4.1 
or 1.5.0).

As you may aware, 1.4.0 release started very early this year and delayed a 
couple of times until now. From the Apache Release process: 
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html, it should be fine for us to 
move forward if majority provide +1 than -1. 

Again, move forward does not mean we should not fix it or ignore problems that 
exist in the code. We will address and fix them in the next release.

Thanks,
Qing

On 2/10/19, 10:28 PM, "Steffen Rochel"  wrote:

Dear community -
I'm cancelling the vote due to -1 feedback from Luciano due to RAT
failures.
For details see

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E

The MXNet community will discuss next steps.

Regards,
Steffen

Re: [RESULTS][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Sheng Zha]

Update on the issue 1. and 4.:
For 1., I fixed the notice year in master branch [1]. If we are to create a new 
rc, the fix should be cherry-picked.
For 4., MKLDNN has found the issue [2] and posted the fix in their master 
branch. I'm requesting that the fix be backported for the minor version 0.17 
that mxnet 1.4 is using.

-sz

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14043
[2] https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn/issues/405#issuecomment-462400456

On 2019/02/05 04:41:32, Steffen Rochel  wrote: 
> Dear MXNet community -
> the result of the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> 1.4.0.rc2 are as follows:
> Binding:
> +1  three (Carin, Indhu, Haibin)
> +0  one (Sheng)
> -0   one (Anirudh)
> -1   none
> 
> Non-binding:
> +1  six   (Yuxi, Aston, Kellen, Aaron, Tao, Lin)
> 0 none
> -1 none
> 
> Voting thread:
> 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5d4aa084e51e9be919d62bfd0e6d625f37318624124a033a5c48507c@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> 
> 
> The following issues have been raised with v1.4.0.rc2:
> 1. NOTICE year is wrong (2018): Not considered a stopping issue as release
> was started in 2018.
> 2. TVM NOTICE missing - TVM NOTICE file was added post the commit ID used
> in MXNet v1.4.0.rc2 release, not considered a stopping issue
> 3. build with make passes, but build with cmake failed in
> 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest
> 4. Recent MKLDNN upgrade prevents us from offering binary distribution for
> earlier versions before OSX 10.13.
> 
> The vote results meet the release voting criteria as defined at
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes: 3 +1 binding
> votes, no -1, more positive then negative votes.
> I'm not sure there is a difference between -0 and +0 votes, but even if
> there is a difference there are more positive vs. negative votes.
> 
> I do consider the issues raised not as show stoppers to move forward with
> the release. I do suggest to get these issues addressed in the next release
> or with a patch on version 1.4.0.
> To give everybody a chance to way into my decision as release manger, I
> will wait until Wednesday 9am PST (about 36h from now) before starting vote
> on general list.
> Please speak up asap if you think the release cannot move forward as is and
> provide justification.
> 
> Regards,
> Steffen
> 

[CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Steffen Rochel]

Dear community -
I'm cancelling the vote due to -1 feedback from Luciano due to RAT
failures.
For details see
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E

The MXNet community will discuss next steps.

Regards,
Steffen

[RESULTS][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Steffen Rochel]

Dear MXNet community -
the result of the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
1.4.0.rc2 are as follows:
Binding:
+1  three (Carin, Indhu, Haibin)
+0  one (Sheng)
-0   one (Anirudh)
-1   none

Non-binding:
+1  six   (Yuxi, Aston, Kellen, Aaron, Tao, Lin)
0 none
-1 none

Voting thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5d4aa084e51e9be919d62bfd0e6d625f37318624124a033a5c48507c@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


The following issues have been raised with v1.4.0.rc2:
1. NOTICE year is wrong (2018): Not considered a stopping issue as release
was started in 2018.
2. TVM NOTICE missing - TVM NOTICE file was added post the commit ID used
in MXNet v1.4.0.rc2 release, not considered a stopping issue
3. build with make passes, but build with cmake failed in
3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest
4. Recent MKLDNN upgrade prevents us from offering binary distribution for
earlier versions before OSX 10.13.

The vote results meet the release voting criteria as defined at
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes: 3 +1 binding
votes, no -1, more positive then negative votes.
I'm not sure there is a difference between -0 and +0 votes, but even if
there is a difference there are more positive vs. negative votes.

I do consider the issues raised not as show stoppers to move forward with
the release. I do suggest to get these issues addressed in the next release
or with a patch on version 1.4.0.
To give everybody a chance to way into my decision as release manger, I
will wait until Wednesday 9am PST (about 36h from now) before starting vote
on general list.
Please speak up asap if you think the release cannot move forward as is and
provide justification.

Regards,
Steffen

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Zhao, Patric]

Hi Sheng,

Thanks to raise this important issues. Sorry for the lack of validation since 
we don't have mac machine with earlier OS version in house.

I will contact with MKL-DNN team for the supports of earlier versions of OSX 
but I'm a little afraid the fix needs some extra-time.

Alternatively, several workarounds in my thoughts (I know it's not the perfect 
solution):

* using LLVM which can work crossing HW/OS generation 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/MKLDNN_README.md#2

* provide the binary build for different HW/OS like cuda, mxnet-cu90/92

* disable MKLDNN supports for earlier versions of HW/OS in MAC, only mxnet 
build.

I will update the status when get the feedback and schedule from MKL-DNN team.

Feel free to let us know if anything we can help.

Thanks,

--Patric


> -Original Message-
> From: Sheng Zha [mailto:szha@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 10:33 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2
> 
> Also, recent MKLDNN upgrade prevents us from offering binary distribution
> for earlier versions of OSX, as it now requires OSX 10.13. This means we
> would need to drop the binary distribution support for OSX 10.11 and 10.12
> if we are to keep mkldnn as a dependency for mxnet-mkl. I'm inquiring
> whether Intel could extend the compatibility to earlier OSX [1], but even if
> this is solved upstream it would require an update on the mkldnn submodule.
> 
> -sz
> 
> [1] https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn/issues/405
> 
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:47 PM Anirudh Subramanian
> 
> wrote:
> 
> > -0
> >
> > Thanks Steffen for your release efforts !
> >
> > Build from source works with make but fails with cmake for me.
> >
> >  cd build && cmake VERBOSE=1 -DUSE_CUDA=ON -DUSE_CUDNN=ON
> > -DUSE_OPENMP=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -
> DUSE_DIST_KVSTORE=0
> > -DUSE_OPENCV=1 -GNinja .. && ninja -v
> >
> > FAILED: : && /usr/bin/c++   -Wall -Wno-unknown-pragmas -fPIC -g -O0 -
> msse2
> > -std=c++11 -fopenmp -g  -pthread
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_lockfree.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_param.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_parser.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_array_view.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_any.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_config.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_threaditer.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_serializer.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_threaditer_exc_handling.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_inputsplit.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_logging.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_json.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_optional.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_main.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_env.cc.o
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unitte
> > st_thread_group.cc.o -o
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-core/test/unittest/dmlc_unit_tests  -rdynamic
> > lib/libgtestd.a 3rdparty/dmlc-core/libdmlc.a -lpthread && :
> >
> > 3rdparty/dmlc-
> core/test/unittest/CMakeFiles/dmlc_unit_tests.dir/unittest_logging.cc.o:
> > In function `Logging_basics_Test::TestBody()':
> >
> > /home/ubuntu/experimentals/1.4_release/build/../3rdparty/dmlc-
> core/test/unittest/unittest_logging.cc:19:
> > undefined reference to `testing::internal::DeathTest::Create(char
> > const*, testing::internal::RE const*, char const*, int,
> > testing::internal::DeathTest**)'
> > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> >
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Haibin Lin 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 built from source on Linux an

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Sheng Zha]

; > Yuxi)
> > > > who
> > > > > tested and provided feedback - we have five +1 votes.
> > > > > As of today, Friday Feb 1st 2019 6pm PST we have two binding votes,
> > one
> > > > +1
> > > > > (Carin), one +0 (Sheng). The vote continues be open waiting for
> > > feedback
> > > > > from PMC members.
> > > > > Hope you can spare some time over the weekend to provide feedback.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Steffen
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:44 AM Marco de Abreu <
> > > marco.g.ab...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Considering the release process has been started last year and
> the
> > > code
> > > > > tag
> > > > > > has also been based on last year, I'd say that it is not really a
> > big
> > > > > deal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Marco
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am Fr., 1. Feb. 2019, 09:33 hat Sheng Zha 
> > > > > > geschrieben:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I found an awesome checklist for incubator releases [1] so I'm
> > > using
> > > > it
> > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -[Y] Are release files in correct location?
> > > > > > > -[Y] Do release files have the word incubating in their name?
> > > > > > > -[Y] Are the digital signature and hashes correct?
> > > > > > > -[Y] Does DISCLAIMER file exist?
> > > > > > > -[Y] Do LICENSE and NOTICE files exists?
> > > > > > > -[N/A] Is the LICENSE and NOTICE text correct? (sz: did not
> > finish
> > > > > > > checking)
> > > > > > > -[N] Is the NOTICE year correct?
> > > > > > > -[N/A] Un-included software dependencies are not mentioned in
> > > LICENSE
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > NOTICE? (sz: did not finish checking)
> > > > > > > -[Y] License information is not mentioned in NOTICE?
> > > > > > > Is there any 3rd party code contained inside the release? If
> so:
> > > > > > > -[Y] Does the software have a compatible license?
> > > > > > > -[Y] Are all software licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
> > > > > > > -[Y] Is the full text of the licenses (or pointers to it) in
> > > LICENSE?
> > > > > > > Is any of this code Apache licensed? Do they have NOTICE files?
> > If
> > > > so:
> > > > > > > -[N] Have relevant parts of those NOTICE files been added to
> this
> > > > > NOTICE
> > > > > > > file?
> > > > > > > TVM has Apache 2.0 license and its NOTICE hasn't been added to
> > > > MXNet's
> > > > > > > NOTICE file.
> > > > > > > -[Y] Do all source files have ASF headers? (sz: enforced by
> > license
> > > > > > > checker)
> > > > > > > -[Y] Do the contents of the release match with what's tagged in
> > > > version
> > > > > > > control?
> > > > > > > -[N] Are there any unexpected binary files in the release?
> > > > > > > -[Y] Can you compile from source? Are the instruction clear?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the issue minor?
> > > > > > > - Unsure. NOTICE year is wrong (it's 2019 now). TVM's NOTICE is
> > > > missing
> > > > > > > from MXNet's NOTICE file.
> > > > > > > Could it possibly be fixed in the next release?
> > > > > > > - Yes
> > > > > > > I vote with:
> > > > > > > +0 not sure if it should be released. Could mentors advise if
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > them before release?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:56 PM Lv, Tao A  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Anirudh Subramanian]

 geschrieben:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I found an awesome checklist for incubator releases [1] so I'm
> > using
> > > it
> > > > > > here:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -[Y] Are release files in correct location?
> > > > > > -[Y] Do release files have the word incubating in their name?
> > > > > > -[Y] Are the digital signature and hashes correct?
> > > > > > -[Y] Does DISCLAIMER file exist?
> > > > > > -[Y] Do LICENSE and NOTICE files exists?
> > > > > > -[N/A] Is the LICENSE and NOTICE text correct? (sz: did not
> finish
> > > > > > checking)
> > > > > > -[N] Is the NOTICE year correct?
> > > > > > -[N/A] Un-included software dependencies are not mentioned in
> > LICENSE
> > > > or
> > > > > > NOTICE? (sz: did not finish checking)
> > > > > > -[Y] License information is not mentioned in NOTICE?
> > > > > > Is there any 3rd party code contained inside the release? If so:
> > > > > > -[Y] Does the software have a compatible license?
> > > > > > -[Y] Are all software licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
> > > > > > -[Y] Is the full text of the licenses (or pointers to it) in
> > LICENSE?
> > > > > > Is any of this code Apache licensed? Do they have NOTICE files?
> If
> > > so:
> > > > > > -[N] Have relevant parts of those NOTICE files been added to this
> > > > NOTICE
> > > > > > file?
> > > > > > TVM has Apache 2.0 license and its NOTICE hasn't been added to
> > > MXNet's
> > > > > > NOTICE file.
> > > > > > -[Y] Do all source files have ASF headers? (sz: enforced by
> license
> > > > > > checker)
> > > > > > -[Y] Do the contents of the release match with what's tagged in
> > > version
> > > > > > control?
> > > > > > -[N] Are there any unexpected binary files in the release?
> > > > > > -[Y] Can you compile from source? Are the instruction clear?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the issue minor?
> > > > > > - Unsure. NOTICE year is wrong (it's 2019 now). TVM's NOTICE is
> > > missing
> > > > > > from MXNet's NOTICE file.
> > > > > > Could it possibly be fixed in the next release?
> > > > > > - Yes
> > > > > > I vote with:
> > > > > > +0 not sure if it should be released. Could mentors advise if we
> > > should
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > them before release?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:56 PM Lv, Tao A 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1. Verified below items:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Checkout code from tag 1.4.0rc2 and build mkldnn backend
> > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > on both cpu and gpu w/ mkl and openblas
> > > > > > > 2. ResNet50v1 FP32 performance looks good for both latency and
> > > > > throughput
> > > > > > > 3. Quantization script works well with ResNet50v1
> > > > > > > 4. ResNet50v1 INT8 model accuracy looks good
> > > > > > > 5. ResNet50v1 INT8 model performance speedup looks good for
> both
> > > > > latency
> > > > > > > and throughput
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 11:45 AM
> > > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> > > > 1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Great, thanks Steffen!  I added a few key files but missed that
> > > one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 from me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:35 AM Steffen Rochel <
> > > 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Haibin Lin]

+1 built from source on Linux and passed dist sync kvstore test.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 9:54 AM Lin Yuan  wrote:

> +1 build from source on MacOS 10.13.6 and tested mxnet-to-coreml converter.
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 9:03 AM Indhu  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Build from source and tested few examples from the examples folder.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Indu
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:21 PM Steffen Rochel 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sheng - thanks for the feedback.
> > > TVM notice  file is missing as the 1.4.x branch/v1.4.0 release is using
> > TVM
> > > commit 0f053c8
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/commit/0f053c82a747b4dcdf49570ec87c17e0067b7439
> > > >
> > >  from Oct 8, 2018, which didn't have the NOTICE file. IMHO, MXNet
> NOTICE
> > > file is consistent with release content.
> > > As the release started in 2018 I do think it is ok to move forward w/o
> > > update to 2019 IMHO.
> > >
> > > All -
> > > thanks to the committers/contributors (Tao, Aaron, Kellen, Aston, Yuxi)
> > who
> > > tested and provided feedback - we have five +1 votes.
> > > As of today, Friday Feb 1st 2019 6pm PST we have two binding votes, one
> > +1
> > > (Carin), one +0 (Sheng). The vote continues be open waiting for
> feedback
> > > from PMC members.
> > > Hope you can spare some time over the weekend to provide feedback.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:44 AM Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.ab...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Considering the release process has been started last year and the
> code
> > > tag
> > > > has also been based on last year, I'd say that it is not really a big
> > > deal.
> > > >
> > > > -Marco
> > > >
> > > > Am Fr., 1. Feb. 2019, 09:33 hat Sheng Zha 
> > > > geschrieben:
> > > >
> > > > > I found an awesome checklist for incubator releases [1] so I'm
> using
> > it
> > > > > here:
> > > > >
> > > > > -[Y] Are release files in correct location?
> > > > > -[Y] Do release files have the word incubating in their name?
> > > > > -[Y] Are the digital signature and hashes correct?
> > > > > -[Y] Does DISCLAIMER file exist?
> > > > > -[Y] Do LICENSE and NOTICE files exists?
> > > > > -[N/A] Is the LICENSE and NOTICE text correct? (sz: did not finish
> > > > > checking)
> > > > > -[N] Is the NOTICE year correct?
> > > > > -[N/A] Un-included software dependencies are not mentioned in
> LICENSE
> > > or
> > > > > NOTICE? (sz: did not finish checking)
> > > > > -[Y] License information is not mentioned in NOTICE?
> > > > > Is there any 3rd party code contained inside the release? If so:
> > > > > -[Y] Does the software have a compatible license?
> > > > > -[Y] Are all software licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
> > > > > -[Y] Is the full text of the licenses (or pointers to it) in
> LICENSE?
> > > > > Is any of this code Apache licensed? Do they have NOTICE files? If
> > so:
> > > > > -[N] Have relevant parts of those NOTICE files been added to this
> > > NOTICE
> > > > > file?
> > > > > TVM has Apache 2.0 license and its NOTICE hasn't been added to
> > MXNet's
> > > > > NOTICE file.
> > > > > -[Y] Do all source files have ASF headers? (sz: enforced by license
> > > > > checker)
> > > > > -[Y] Do the contents of the release match with what's tagged in
> > version
> > > > > control?
> > > > > -[N] Are there any unexpected binary files in the release?
> > > > > -[Y] Can you compile from source? Are the instruction clear?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the issue minor?
> > > > > - Unsure. NOTICE year is wrong (it's 2019 now). TVM's NOTICE is
> > missing
> > > > > from MXNet's NOTICE file.
> > > > > Could it possibly be fixed in the next release?
> > > > > - Yes
> > > > > I vote with:
> > > > > +0 not sure if it should be released. Could mentors advise if we
> > should
> > > > fix
> > > > > them before release?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] ht

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Lin Yuan]

+1 build from source on MacOS 10.13.6 and tested mxnet-to-coreml converter.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 9:03 AM Indhu  wrote:

> +1
>
> Build from source and tested few examples from the examples folder.
>
> Thanks,
> Indu
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:21 PM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sheng - thanks for the feedback.
> > TVM notice  file is missing as the 1.4.x branch/v1.4.0 release is using
> TVM
> > commit 0f053c8
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/commit/0f053c82a747b4dcdf49570ec87c17e0067b7439
> > >
> >  from Oct 8, 2018, which didn't have the NOTICE file. IMHO, MXNet NOTICE
> > file is consistent with release content.
> > As the release started in 2018 I do think it is ok to move forward w/o
> > update to 2019 IMHO.
> >
> > All -
> > thanks to the committers/contributors (Tao, Aaron, Kellen, Aston, Yuxi)
> who
> > tested and provided feedback - we have five +1 votes.
> > As of today, Friday Feb 1st 2019 6pm PST we have two binding votes, one
> +1
> > (Carin), one +0 (Sheng). The vote continues be open waiting for feedback
> > from PMC members.
> > Hope you can spare some time over the weekend to provide feedback.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steffen
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:44 AM Marco de Abreu 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Considering the release process has been started last year and the code
> > tag
> > > has also been based on last year, I'd say that it is not really a big
> > deal.
> > >
> > > -Marco
> > >
> > > Am Fr., 1. Feb. 2019, 09:33 hat Sheng Zha 
> > > geschrieben:
> > >
> > > > I found an awesome checklist for incubator releases [1] so I'm using
> it
> > > > here:
> > > >
> > > > -[Y] Are release files in correct location?
> > > > -[Y] Do release files have the word incubating in their name?
> > > > -[Y] Are the digital signature and hashes correct?
> > > > -[Y] Does DISCLAIMER file exist?
> > > > -[Y] Do LICENSE and NOTICE files exists?
> > > > -[N/A] Is the LICENSE and NOTICE text correct? (sz: did not finish
> > > > checking)
> > > > -[N] Is the NOTICE year correct?
> > > > -[N/A] Un-included software dependencies are not mentioned in LICENSE
> > or
> > > > NOTICE? (sz: did not finish checking)
> > > > -[Y] License information is not mentioned in NOTICE?
> > > > Is there any 3rd party code contained inside the release? If so:
> > > > -[Y] Does the software have a compatible license?
> > > > -[Y] Are all software licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
> > > > -[Y] Is the full text of the licenses (or pointers to it) in LICENSE?
> > > > Is any of this code Apache licensed? Do they have NOTICE files? If
> so:
> > > > -[N] Have relevant parts of those NOTICE files been added to this
> > NOTICE
> > > > file?
> > > > TVM has Apache 2.0 license and its NOTICE hasn't been added to
> MXNet's
> > > > NOTICE file.
> > > > -[Y] Do all source files have ASF headers? (sz: enforced by license
> > > > checker)
> > > > -[Y] Do the contents of the release match with what's tagged in
> version
> > > > control?
> > > > -[N] Are there any unexpected binary files in the release?
> > > > -[Y] Can you compile from source? Are the instruction clear?
> > > >
> > > > Is the issue minor?
> > > > - Unsure. NOTICE year is wrong (it's 2019 now). TVM's NOTICE is
> missing
> > > > from MXNet's NOTICE file.
> > > > Could it possibly be fixed in the next release?
> > > > - Yes
> > > > I vote with:
> > > > +0 not sure if it should be released. Could mentors advise if we
> should
> > > fix
> > > > them before release?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:56 PM Lv, Tao A 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > +1. Verified below items:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Checkout code from tag 1.4.0rc2 and build mkldnn backend
> > > successfully
> > > > > on both cpu and gpu w/ mkl and openblas
> > > > > 2. ResNet50v1 FP32 performance looks good for both latency and
> > > throughput
> > > > > 3. Quantization script works well with ResNet50v1
> > > > > 4. ResNet5

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Indhu]

+1

Build from source and tested few examples from the examples folder.

Thanks,
Indu



On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:21 PM Steffen Rochel 
wrote:

> Hi Sheng - thanks for the feedback.
> TVM notice  file is missing as the 1.4.x branch/v1.4.0 release is using TVM
> commit 0f053c8
> <
> https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/commit/0f053c82a747b4dcdf49570ec87c17e0067b7439
> >
>  from Oct 8, 2018, which didn't have the NOTICE file. IMHO, MXNet NOTICE
> file is consistent with release content.
> As the release started in 2018 I do think it is ok to move forward w/o
> update to 2019 IMHO.
>
> All -
> thanks to the committers/contributors (Tao, Aaron, Kellen, Aston, Yuxi) who
> tested and provided feedback - we have five +1 votes.
> As of today, Friday Feb 1st 2019 6pm PST we have two binding votes, one +1
> (Carin), one +0 (Sheng). The vote continues be open waiting for feedback
> from PMC members.
> Hope you can spare some time over the weekend to provide feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Steffen
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:44 AM Marco de Abreu 
> wrote:
>
> > Considering the release process has been started last year and the code
> tag
> > has also been based on last year, I'd say that it is not really a big
> deal.
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> > Am Fr., 1. Feb. 2019, 09:33 hat Sheng Zha 
> > geschrieben:
> >
> > > I found an awesome checklist for incubator releases [1] so I'm using it
> > > here:
> > >
> > > -[Y] Are release files in correct location?
> > > -[Y] Do release files have the word incubating in their name?
> > > -[Y] Are the digital signature and hashes correct?
> > > -[Y] Does DISCLAIMER file exist?
> > > -[Y] Do LICENSE and NOTICE files exists?
> > > -[N/A] Is the LICENSE and NOTICE text correct? (sz: did not finish
> > > checking)
> > > -[N] Is the NOTICE year correct?
> > > -[N/A] Un-included software dependencies are not mentioned in LICENSE
> or
> > > NOTICE? (sz: did not finish checking)
> > > -[Y] License information is not mentioned in NOTICE?
> > > Is there any 3rd party code contained inside the release? If so:
> > > -[Y] Does the software have a compatible license?
> > > -[Y] Are all software licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
> > > -[Y] Is the full text of the licenses (or pointers to it) in LICENSE?
> > > Is any of this code Apache licensed? Do they have NOTICE files? If so:
> > > -[N] Have relevant parts of those NOTICE files been added to this
> NOTICE
> > > file?
> > > TVM has Apache 2.0 license and its NOTICE hasn't been added to MXNet's
> > > NOTICE file.
> > > -[Y] Do all source files have ASF headers? (sz: enforced by license
> > > checker)
> > > -[Y] Do the contents of the release match with what's tagged in version
> > > control?
> > > -[N] Are there any unexpected binary files in the release?
> > > -[Y] Can you compile from source? Are the instruction clear?
> > >
> > > Is the issue minor?
> > > - Unsure. NOTICE year is wrong (it's 2019 now). TVM's NOTICE is missing
> > > from MXNet's NOTICE file.
> > > Could it possibly be fixed in the next release?
> > > - Yes
> > > I vote with:
> > > +0 not sure if it should be released. Could mentors advise if we should
> > fix
> > > them before release?
> > >
> > > [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:56 PM Lv, Tao A  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > +1. Verified below items:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Checkout code from tag 1.4.0rc2 and build mkldnn backend
> > successfully
> > > > on both cpu and gpu w/ mkl and openblas
> > > > 2. ResNet50v1 FP32 performance looks good for both latency and
> > throughput
> > > > 3. Quantization script works well with ResNet50v1
> > > > 4. ResNet50v1 INT8 model accuracy looks good
> > > > 5. ResNet50v1 INT8 model performance speedup looks good for both
> > latency
> > > > and throughput
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 11:45 AM
> > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> 1.4.0.rc2
> > > >
> > > > Great, thanks Steffen!  I added a few key files but missed that one.
> > 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Steffen Rochel]

Hi Sheng - thanks for the feedback.
TVM notice  file is missing as the 1.4.x branch/v1.4.0 release is using TVM
commit 0f053c8
<https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/commit/0f053c82a747b4dcdf49570ec87c17e0067b7439>
 from Oct 8, 2018, which didn't have the NOTICE file. IMHO, MXNet NOTICE
file is consistent with release content.
As the release started in 2018 I do think it is ok to move forward w/o
update to 2019 IMHO.

All -
thanks to the committers/contributors (Tao, Aaron, Kellen, Aston, Yuxi) who
tested and provided feedback - we have five +1 votes.
As of today, Friday Feb 1st 2019 6pm PST we have two binding votes, one +1
(Carin), one +0 (Sheng). The vote continues be open waiting for feedback
from PMC members.
Hope you can spare some time over the weekend to provide feedback.

Regards,
Steffen

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:44 AM Marco de Abreu 
wrote:

> Considering the release process has been started last year and the code tag
> has also been based on last year, I'd say that it is not really a big deal.
>
> -Marco
>
> Am Fr., 1. Feb. 2019, 09:33 hat Sheng Zha 
> geschrieben:
>
> > I found an awesome checklist for incubator releases [1] so I'm using it
> > here:
> >
> > -[Y] Are release files in correct location?
> > -[Y] Do release files have the word incubating in their name?
> > -[Y] Are the digital signature and hashes correct?
> > -[Y] Does DISCLAIMER file exist?
> > -[Y] Do LICENSE and NOTICE files exists?
> > -[N/A] Is the LICENSE and NOTICE text correct? (sz: did not finish
> > checking)
> > -[N] Is the NOTICE year correct?
> > -[N/A] Un-included software dependencies are not mentioned in LICENSE or
> > NOTICE? (sz: did not finish checking)
> > -[Y] License information is not mentioned in NOTICE?
> > Is there any 3rd party code contained inside the release? If so:
> > -[Y] Does the software have a compatible license?
> > -[Y] Are all software licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
> > -[Y] Is the full text of the licenses (or pointers to it) in LICENSE?
> > Is any of this code Apache licensed? Do they have NOTICE files? If so:
> > -[N] Have relevant parts of those NOTICE files been added to this NOTICE
> > file?
> > TVM has Apache 2.0 license and its NOTICE hasn't been added to MXNet's
> > NOTICE file.
> > -[Y] Do all source files have ASF headers? (sz: enforced by license
> > checker)
> > -[Y] Do the contents of the release match with what's tagged in version
> > control?
> > -[N] Are there any unexpected binary files in the release?
> > -[Y] Can you compile from source? Are the instruction clear?
> >
> > Is the issue minor?
> > - Unsure. NOTICE year is wrong (it's 2019 now). TVM's NOTICE is missing
> > from MXNet's NOTICE file.
> > Could it possibly be fixed in the next release?
> > - Yes
> > I vote with:
> > +0 not sure if it should be released. Could mentors advise if we should
> fix
> > them before release?
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:56 PM Lv, Tao A  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > +1. Verified below items:
> > >
> > > 1. Checkout code from tag 1.4.0rc2 and build mkldnn backend
> successfully
> > > on both cpu and gpu w/ mkl and openblas
> > > 2. ResNet50v1 FP32 performance looks good for both latency and
> throughput
> > > 3. Quantization script works well with ResNet50v1
> > > 4. ResNet50v1 INT8 model accuracy looks good
> > > 5. ResNet50v1 INT8 model performance speedup looks good for both
> latency
> > > and throughput
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 11:45 AM
> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2
> > >
> > > Great, thanks Steffen!  I added a few key files but missed that one.
> > >
> > > +1 from me.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:35 AM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kellen - Sergey, the 1.4.0 release co-manager signed the tar file.
> > > > Please use his public key to validate the asc.
> > > > I was able to validate:
> > > >
> > > > curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS -o
> > > > KEYS
> > > >
> > > > gpg --import KEYS
> > > >
> > > > gpg --verify apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz.asc

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Marco de Abreu]

Considering the release process has been started last year and the code tag
has also been based on last year, I'd say that it is not really a big deal.

-Marco

Am Fr., 1. Feb. 2019, 09:33 hat Sheng Zha  geschrieben:

> I found an awesome checklist for incubator releases [1] so I'm using it
> here:
>
> -[Y] Are release files in correct location?
> -[Y] Do release files have the word incubating in their name?
> -[Y] Are the digital signature and hashes correct?
> -[Y] Does DISCLAIMER file exist?
> -[Y] Do LICENSE and NOTICE files exists?
> -[N/A] Is the LICENSE and NOTICE text correct? (sz: did not finish
> checking)
> -[N] Is the NOTICE year correct?
> -[N/A] Un-included software dependencies are not mentioned in LICENSE or
> NOTICE? (sz: did not finish checking)
> -[Y] License information is not mentioned in NOTICE?
> Is there any 3rd party code contained inside the release? If so:
> -[Y] Does the software have a compatible license?
> -[Y] Are all software licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
> -[Y] Is the full text of the licenses (or pointers to it) in LICENSE?
> Is any of this code Apache licensed? Do they have NOTICE files? If so:
> -[N] Have relevant parts of those NOTICE files been added to this NOTICE
> file?
> TVM has Apache 2.0 license and its NOTICE hasn't been added to MXNet's
> NOTICE file.
> -[Y] Do all source files have ASF headers? (sz: enforced by license
> checker)
> -[Y] Do the contents of the release match with what's tagged in version
> control?
> -[N] Are there any unexpected binary files in the release?
> -[Y] Can you compile from source? Are the instruction clear?
>
> Is the issue minor?
> - Unsure. NOTICE year is wrong (it's 2019 now). TVM's NOTICE is missing
> from MXNet's NOTICE file.
> Could it possibly be fixed in the next release?
> - Yes
> I vote with:
> +0 not sure if it should be released. Could mentors advise if we should fix
> them before release?
>
> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:56 PM Lv, Tao A  wrote:
>
> >
> > +1. Verified below items:
> >
> > 1. Checkout code from tag 1.4.0rc2 and build mkldnn backend successfully
> > on both cpu and gpu w/ mkl and openblas
> > 2. ResNet50v1 FP32 performance looks good for both latency and throughput
> > 3. Quantization script works well with ResNet50v1
> > 4. ResNet50v1 INT8 model accuracy looks good
> > 5. ResNet50v1 INT8 model performance speedup looks good for both latency
> > and throughput
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 11:45 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2
> >
> > Great, thanks Steffen!  I added a few key files but missed that one.
> >
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:35 AM Steffen Rochel 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Kellen - Sergey, the 1.4.0 release co-manager signed the tar file.
> > > Please use his public key to validate the asc.
> > > I was able to validate:
> > >
> > > curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS -o
> > > KEYS
> > >
> > > gpg --import KEYS
> > >
> > > gpg --verify apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz.asc
> > >
> > >
> > > output:
> > >
> > > gpg: assuming signed data in
> > 'apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz'
> > >
> > > gpg: Signature made Sat Jan 26 16:25:41 2019 PST
> > >
> > > gpg:using RSA key
> > BD52136E76B7BD68E7843B0B591C06669F740FD7
> > >
> > > gpg: Good signature from "Sergey Kolychev "
> > > [unknown]
> > >
> > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> > >
> > > gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> > > owner.
> > >
> > > Primary key fingerprint: BD52 136E 76B7 BD68 E784  3B0B 591C 0666 9F74
> > > 0FD7
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:39 PM kellen sunderland <
> > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +0
> > > >
> > > > Overall release looks good.  Probably something I'm doing wrong, but
> > > > so
> > > far
> > > > not able to validate the .asc.  I'm getting "Can't check signature:
> > > > No public key".  I've added the keys

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Sheng Zha]

I found an awesome checklist for incubator releases [1] so I'm using it
here:

-[Y] Are release files in correct location?
-[Y] Do release files have the word incubating in their name?
-[Y] Are the digital signature and hashes correct?
-[Y] Does DISCLAIMER file exist?
-[Y] Do LICENSE and NOTICE files exists?
-[N/A] Is the LICENSE and NOTICE text correct? (sz: did not finish checking)
-[N] Is the NOTICE year correct?
-[N/A] Un-included software dependencies are not mentioned in LICENSE or
NOTICE? (sz: did not finish checking)
-[Y] License information is not mentioned in NOTICE?
Is there any 3rd party code contained inside the release? If so:
-[Y] Does the software have a compatible license?
-[Y] Are all software licenses mentioned in LICENSE?
-[Y] Is the full text of the licenses (or pointers to it) in LICENSE?
Is any of this code Apache licensed? Do they have NOTICE files? If so:
-[N] Have relevant parts of those NOTICE files been added to this NOTICE
file?
TVM has Apache 2.0 license and its NOTICE hasn't been added to MXNet's
NOTICE file.
-[Y] Do all source files have ASF headers? (sz: enforced by license checker)
-[Y] Do the contents of the release match with what's tagged in version
control?
-[N] Are there any unexpected binary files in the release?
-[Y] Can you compile from source? Are the instruction clear?

Is the issue minor?
- Unsure. NOTICE year is wrong (it's 2019 now). TVM's NOTICE is missing
from MXNet's NOTICE file.
Could it possibly be fixed in the next release?
- Yes
I vote with:
+0 not sure if it should be released. Could mentors advise if we should fix
them before release?

[1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist


On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:56 PM Lv, Tao A  wrote:

>
> +1. Verified below items:
>
> 1. Checkout code from tag 1.4.0rc2 and build mkldnn backend successfully
> on both cpu and gpu w/ mkl and openblas
> 2. ResNet50v1 FP32 performance looks good for both latency and throughput
> 3. Quantization script works well with ResNet50v1
> 4. ResNet50v1 INT8 model accuracy looks good
> 5. ResNet50v1 INT8 model performance speedup looks good for both latency
> and throughput
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 11:45 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2
>
> Great, thanks Steffen!  I added a few key files but missed that one.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:35 AM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
>
> > Kellen - Sergey, the 1.4.0 release co-manager signed the tar file.
> > Please use his public key to validate the asc.
> > I was able to validate:
> >
> > curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS -o
> > KEYS
> >
> > gpg --import KEYS
> >
> > gpg --verify apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz.asc
> >
> >
> > output:
> >
> > gpg: assuming signed data in
> 'apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz'
> >
> > gpg: Signature made Sat Jan 26 16:25:41 2019 PST
> >
> > gpg:using RSA key
> BD52136E76B7BD68E7843B0B591C06669F740FD7
> >
> > gpg: Good signature from "Sergey Kolychev "
> > [unknown]
> >
> > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> >
> > gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> > owner.
> >
> > Primary key fingerprint: BD52 136E 76B7 BD68 E784  3B0B 591C 0666 9F74
> > 0FD7
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Steffen
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:39 PM kellen sunderland <
> > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +0
> > >
> > > Overall release looks good.  Probably something I'm doing wrong, but
> > > so
> > far
> > > not able to validate the .asc.  I'm getting "Can't check signature:
> > > No public key".  I've added the keys from GitHub and the release
> > > folder, and also added your public key "40C9346904DFCE37" from the
> > > MIT key server Steffen.  Is there another key I'm missing?
> > >
> > > 1. sha512 look good.
> > > 2. Compile from source successfully
> > > 3. TensorRT build succeeds and runs inference for demo models 4.
> > > License, notice and disclaimer exist.
> > >
> > > -Kellen
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:58 PM Steffen Rochel
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear MXNet community -
> > > > we currently have three +1 votes, one binding.
> > > > As the vote did not reach the necessary number of b

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Lv, Tao A]

+1. Verified below items:

1. Checkout code from tag 1.4.0rc2 and build mkldnn backend successfully on 
both cpu and gpu w/ mkl and openblas 
2. ResNet50v1 FP32 performance looks good for both latency and throughput 
3. Quantization script works well with ResNet50v1 
4. ResNet50v1 INT8 model accuracy looks good 
5. ResNet50v1 INT8 model performance speedup looks good for both latency and 
throughput 


-Original Message-
From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 11:45 AM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

Great, thanks Steffen!  I added a few key files but missed that one.

+1 from me.

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:35 AM Steffen Rochel 
wrote:

> Kellen - Sergey, the 1.4.0 release co-manager signed the tar file. 
> Please use his public key to validate the asc.
> I was able to validate:
>
> curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS -o 
> KEYS
>
> gpg --import KEYS
>
> gpg --verify apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz.asc
>
>
> output:
>
> gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz'
>
> gpg: Signature made Sat Jan 26 16:25:41 2019 PST
>
> gpg:using RSA key BD52136E76B7BD68E7843B0B591C06669F740FD7
>
> gpg: Good signature from "Sergey Kolychev "
> [unknown]
>
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>
> gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> owner.
>
> Primary key fingerprint: BD52 136E 76B7 BD68 E784  3B0B 591C 0666 9F74 
> 0FD7
>
>
> Best,
> Steffen
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:39 PM kellen sunderland < 
> kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +0
> >
> > Overall release looks good.  Probably something I'm doing wrong, but 
> > so
> far
> > not able to validate the .asc.  I'm getting "Can't check signature: 
> > No public key".  I've added the keys from GitHub and the release 
> > folder, and also added your public key "40C9346904DFCE37" from the 
> > MIT key server Steffen.  Is there another key I'm missing?
> >
> > 1. sha512 look good.
> > 2. Compile from source successfully
> > 3. TensorRT build succeeds and runs inference for demo models 4. 
> > License, notice and disclaimer exist.
> >
> > -Kellen
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:58 PM Steffen Rochel 
> > 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear MXNet community -
> > > we currently have three +1 votes, one binding.
> > > As the vote did not reach the necessary number of binding votes 
> > > I'm extending voting.
> > >
> > > I'm calling on all PMC member, please test and vote.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:43 PM Aston Zhang 
> > > 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Tested with the Dive into Deep Learning book.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:25 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Carin and Yuxi.
> > > > >
> > > > > Committers and PMC members - please test and send your vote to
> > release
> > > > > Apache MXNet (incubating) v1.4.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Steffen
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:55 AM Yuxi Hu 
> > > > > 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > verified the training throughput for resnet50_v1 looks 
> > > > > > normal
> > > compared
> > > > to
> > > > > > 1.3.1 release
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Carin Meier <
> carinme...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested
> > > > > Scala/Clojure
> > > > > > > package.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear MXNet community,
> > > > > > > >
> > > &

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[kellen sunderland]

Great, thanks Steffen!  I added a few key files but missed that one.

+1 from me.

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:35 AM Steffen Rochel 
wrote:

> Kellen - Sergey, the 1.4.0 release co-manager signed the tar file. Please
> use his public key to validate the asc.
> I was able to validate:
>
> curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS -o KEYS
>
> gpg --import KEYS
>
> gpg --verify apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz.asc
>
>
> output:
>
> gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz'
>
> gpg: Signature made Sat Jan 26 16:25:41 2019 PST
>
> gpg:using RSA key BD52136E76B7BD68E7843B0B591C06669F740FD7
>
> gpg: Good signature from "Sergey Kolychev "
> [unknown]
>
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>
> gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> owner.
>
> Primary key fingerprint: BD52 136E 76B7 BD68 E784  3B0B 591C 0666 9F74 0FD7
>
>
> Best,
> Steffen
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:39 PM kellen sunderland <
> kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +0
> >
> > Overall release looks good.  Probably something I'm doing wrong, but so
> far
> > not able to validate the .asc.  I'm getting "Can't check signature: No
> > public key".  I've added the keys from GitHub and the release folder, and
> > also added your public key "40C9346904DFCE37" from the MIT key server
> > Steffen.  Is there another key I'm missing?
> >
> > 1. sha512 look good.
> > 2. Compile from source successfully
> > 3. TensorRT build succeeds and runs inference for demo models
> > 4. License, notice and disclaimer exist.
> >
> > -Kellen
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:58 PM Steffen Rochel 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear MXNet community -
> > > we currently have three +1 votes, one binding.
> > > As the vote did not reach the necessary number of binding votes I'm
> > > extending voting.
> > >
> > > I'm calling on all PMC member, please test and vote.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:43 PM Aston Zhang 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Tested with the Dive into Deep Learning book.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:25 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Carin and Yuxi.
> > > > >
> > > > > Committers and PMC members - please test and send your vote to
> > release
> > > > > Apache MXNet (incubating) v1.4.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Steffen
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:55 AM Yuxi Hu 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > verified the training throughput for resnet50_v1 looks normal
> > > compared
> > > > to
> > > > > > 1.3.1 release
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Carin Meier <
> carinme...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested
> > > > > Scala/Clojure
> > > > > > > package.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear MXNet community,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> > > > v1.4.0.
> > > > > > > > Voting will
> > > > > > > > start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on
> > > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > > > > January 30th 7pm PST.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Link to release notes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> > > > > > > > 1.4.0+Release+Notes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Link to release candidate:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
> > > > > > > > <
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > > > >1.4.0.rc
> > > > > > > > <
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc1
> > > > >2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
> > > > > > > >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
> > > > > > > > +1 = approve
> > > > > > > > +0 = no opinion
> > > > > > > > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Steffen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Yuxi(Darren) Hu, Ph.D.
> > > > > > Software Development Engineer
> > > > > > Amazon Web Services
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Steffen Rochel]

Kellen - Sergey, the 1.4.0 release co-manager signed the tar file. Please
use his public key to validate the asc.
I was able to validate:

curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS -o KEYS

gpg --import KEYS

gpg --verify apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz.asc


output:

gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.4.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz'

gpg: Signature made Sat Jan 26 16:25:41 2019 PST

gpg:using RSA key BD52136E76B7BD68E7843B0B591C06669F740FD7

gpg: Good signature from "Sergey Kolychev "
[unknown]

gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!

gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
owner.

Primary key fingerprint: BD52 136E 76B7 BD68 E784  3B0B 591C 0666 9F74 0FD7


Best,
Steffen

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:39 PM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +0
>
> Overall release looks good.  Probably something I'm doing wrong, but so far
> not able to validate the .asc.  I'm getting "Can't check signature: No
> public key".  I've added the keys from GitHub and the release folder, and
> also added your public key "40C9346904DFCE37" from the MIT key server
> Steffen.  Is there another key I'm missing?
>
> 1. sha512 look good.
> 2. Compile from source successfully
> 3. TensorRT build succeeds and runs inference for demo models
> 4. License, notice and disclaimer exist.
>
> -Kellen
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:58 PM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear MXNet community -
> > we currently have three +1 votes, one binding.
> > As the vote did not reach the necessary number of binding votes I'm
> > extending voting.
> >
> > I'm calling on all PMC member, please test and vote.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steffen
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:43 PM Aston Zhang 
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Tested with the Dive into Deep Learning book.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:25 PM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Carin and Yuxi.
> > > >
> > > > Committers and PMC members - please test and send your vote to
> release
> > > > Apache MXNet (incubating) v1.4.0.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:55 AM Yuxi Hu 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > verified the training throughput for resnet50_v1 looks normal
> > compared
> > > to
> > > > > 1.3.1 release
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Carin Meier 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested
> > > > Scala/Clojure
> > > > > > package.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear MXNet community,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> > > v1.4.0.
> > > > > > > Voting will
> > > > > > > start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on
> > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > > > January 30th 7pm PST.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Link to release notes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> > > > > > > 1.4.0+Release+Notes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Link to release candidate:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
> > > > > > > <
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > > >1.4.0.rc
> > > > > > > <
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc1
> > > >2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
> > > > > > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
> > > > > > > +1 = approve
> > > > > > > +0 = no opinion
> > > > > > > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Steffen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Yuxi(Darren) Hu, Ph.D.
> > > > > Software Development Engineer
> > > > > Amazon Web Services
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Aaron Markham]

+1 I built the full website including the branch and it was fine.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 22:39 kellen sunderland  +0
>
> Overall release looks good.  Probably something I'm doing wrong, but so far
> not able to validate the .asc.  I'm getting "Can't check signature: No
> public key".  I've added the keys from GitHub and the release folder, and
> also added your public key "40C9346904DFCE37" from the MIT key server
> Steffen.  Is there another key I'm missing?
>
> 1. sha512 look good.
> 2. Compile from source successfully
> 3. TensorRT build succeeds and runs inference for demo models
> 4. License, notice and disclaimer exist.
>
> -Kellen
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:58 PM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear MXNet community -
> > we currently have three +1 votes, one binding.
> > As the vote did not reach the necessary number of binding votes I'm
> > extending voting.
> >
> > I'm calling on all PMC member, please test and vote.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steffen
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:43 PM Aston Zhang 
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Tested with the Dive into Deep Learning book.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:25 PM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Carin and Yuxi.
> > > >
> > > > Committers and PMC members - please test and send your vote to
> release
> > > > Apache MXNet (incubating) v1.4.0.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:55 AM Yuxi Hu 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > verified the training throughput for resnet50_v1 looks normal
> > compared
> > > to
> > > > > 1.3.1 release
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Carin Meier 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested
> > > > Scala/Clojure
> > > > > > package.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear MXNet community,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> > > v1.4.0.
> > > > > > > Voting will
> > > > > > > start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on
> > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > > > January 30th 7pm PST.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Link to release notes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> > > > > > > 1.4.0+Release+Notes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Link to release candidate:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
> > > > > > > <
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > > >1.4.0.rc
> > > > > > > <
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc1
> > > >2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
> > > > > > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
> > > > > > > +1 = approve
> > > > > > > +0 = no opinion
> > > > > > > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Steffen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Yuxi(Darren) Hu, Ph.D.
> > > > > Software Development Engineer
> > > > > Amazon Web Services
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[kellen sunderland]

+0

Overall release looks good.  Probably something I'm doing wrong, but so far
not able to validate the .asc.  I'm getting "Can't check signature: No
public key".  I've added the keys from GitHub and the release folder, and
also added your public key "40C9346904DFCE37" from the MIT key server
Steffen.  Is there another key I'm missing?

1. sha512 look good.
2. Compile from source successfully
3. TensorRT build succeeds and runs inference for demo models
4. License, notice and disclaimer exist.

-Kellen

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:58 PM Steffen Rochel 
wrote:

> Dear MXNet community -
> we currently have three +1 votes, one binding.
> As the vote did not reach the necessary number of binding votes I'm
> extending voting.
>
> I'm calling on all PMC member, please test and vote.
>
> Regards,
> Steffen
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:43 PM Aston Zhang  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Tested with the Dive into Deep Learning book.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:25 PM Steffen Rochel 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Carin and Yuxi.
> > >
> > > Committers and PMC members - please test and send your vote to release
> > > Apache MXNet (incubating) v1.4.0.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:55 AM Yuxi Hu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > verified the training throughput for resnet50_v1 looks normal
> compared
> > to
> > > > 1.3.1 release
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Carin Meier 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested
> > > Scala/Clojure
> > > > > package.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear MXNet community,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> > v1.4.0.
> > > > > > Voting will
> > > > > > start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on
> > > Wednesday,
> > > > > > January 30th 7pm PST.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Link to release notes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> > > > > > 1.4.0+Release+Notes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Link to release candidate:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
> > > > > > <
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > >1.4.0.rc
> > > > > > <
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc1
> > >2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
> > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
> > > > > > +1 = approve
> > > > > > +0 = no opinion
> > > > > > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Steffen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Yuxi(Darren) Hu, Ph.D.
> > > > Software Development Engineer
> > > > Amazon Web Services
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Steffen Rochel]

Dear MXNet community -
we currently have three +1 votes, one binding.
As the vote did not reach the necessary number of binding votes I'm
extending voting.

I'm calling on all PMC member, please test and vote.

Regards,
Steffen

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:43 PM Aston Zhang  wrote:

> +1
>
> Tested with the Dive into Deep Learning book.
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:25 PM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Carin and Yuxi.
> >
> > Committers and PMC members - please test and send your vote to release
> > Apache MXNet (incubating) v1.4.0.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steffen
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:55 AM Yuxi Hu  wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > verified the training throughput for resnet50_v1 looks normal compared
> to
> > > 1.3.1 release
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Carin Meier 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested
> > Scala/Clojure
> > > > package.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear MXNet community,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version
> v1.4.0.
> > > > > Voting will
> > > > > start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on
> > Wednesday,
> > > > > January 30th 7pm PST.
> > > > >
> > > > > Link to release notes:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> > > > > 1.4.0+Release+Notes
> > > > >
> > > > > Link to release candidate:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
> > > > >  > > > >1.4.0.rc
> > > > >  >2
> > > > >
> > > > > Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
> > > > > +1 = approve
> > > > > +0 = no opinion
> > > > > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Steffen
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yuxi(Darren) Hu, Ph.D.
> > > Software Development Engineer
> > > Amazon Web Services
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Aston Zhang]

+1

Tested with the Dive into Deep Learning book.

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:25 PM Steffen Rochel 
wrote:

> Thanks Carin and Yuxi.
>
> Committers and PMC members - please test and send your vote to release
> Apache MXNet (incubating) v1.4.0.
>
> Regards,
> Steffen
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:55 AM Yuxi Hu  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > verified the training throughput for resnet50_v1 looks normal compared to
> > 1.3.1 release
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Carin Meier 
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested
> Scala/Clojure
> > > package.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear MXNet community,
> > > >
> > > > This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version v1.4.0.
> > > > Voting will
> > > > start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on
> Wednesday,
> > > > January 30th 7pm PST.
> > > >
> > > > Link to release notes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> > > > 1.4.0+Release+Notes
> > > >
> > > > Link to release candidate:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
> > > >  > > >1.4.0.rc
> > > > 2
> > > >
> > > > Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
> > > > +1 = approve
> > > > +0 = no opinion
> > > > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Yuxi(Darren) Hu, Ph.D.
> > Software Development Engineer
> > Amazon Web Services
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Yuxi Hu]

+1

verified the training throughput for resnet50_v1 looks normal compared to
1.3.1 release

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:36 PM Carin Meier  wrote:

> +1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested Scala/Clojure
> package.
>
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear MXNet community,
> >
> > This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version v1.4.0.
> > Voting will
> > start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on Wednesday,
> > January 30th 7pm PST.
> >
> > Link to release notes:
> >
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> > 1.4.0+Release+Notes
> >
> > Link to release candidate:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
> >  >1.4.0.rc
> > 2
> >
> > Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2
> >
> >
> > Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
> > +1 = approve
> > +0 = no opinion
> > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Steffen
> >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Yuxi(Darren) Hu, Ph.D.
Software Development Engineer
Amazon Web Services

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Carin Meier]

+1 - checked out from the release tag and built and tested Scala/Clojure
package.

On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 8:53 PM Steffen Rochel 
wrote:

> Dear MXNet community,
>
> This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version v1.4.0.
> Voting will
> start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on Wednesday,
> January 30th 7pm PST.
>
> Link to release notes:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> 1.4.0+Release+Notes
>
> Link to release candidate:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
> 1.4.0.rc
> 2
>
> Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2
>
>
> Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
> +1 = approve
> +0 = no opinion
> -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Steffen
>
> >
>

[VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

[Steffen Rochel]

Dear MXNet community,

This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version v1.4.0.
Voting will
start today, Saturday January 26th 6pm PST and will close on Wednesday,
January 30th 7pm PST.

Link to release notes:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
1.4.0+Release+Notes

Link to release candidate:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/
1.4.0.rc
2

Link to source and signatures on apache dist server:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.4.0.rc2


Please remember to TEST first before voting accordingly:
+1 = approve
+0 = no opinion
-1 = disapprove (provide reason)


Best regards,
Steffen

>