Re: Splitting Jenkins pipelines - stop changes to Jenkinsfiles!

2018-11-21 Thread Marco de Abreu
Hello, the PR has been merged and I've created the new pipelines at [1]. You can see the new reports if you have a look at this example PR at [2]. The new status messages will be the ones starting with "ci/jenkins/mxnet-validation/". This now allows you to retrigger specific pipelines if they

Re: CI impaired

2018-11-21 Thread Marco de Abreu
Thanks Aaron! Just for the record, the new Jenkins jobs were unrelated to that incident. If somebody is interested in the details around the outage: Due to a required maintenance (disk running full), we had to upgrade our Jenkins master because it was running on Ubuntu 17.04 (for an unknown

Re: CI impaired

2018-11-21 Thread Aaron Markham
Marco, thanks for your hard work on this. I'm super excited about the new Jenkins jobs. This is going to be very helpful and improve sanity for our PRs and ourselves! Cheers, Aaron On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 05:37 Marco de Abreu Hello, > > the CI is now back up and running. Auto scaling is working

Re: CI impaired

2018-11-21 Thread Marco de Abreu
Hello, the CI is now back up and running. Auto scaling is working as expected and it passed our load tests. Please excuse the caused inconveniences. Best regards, Marco On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:24 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to let you know that our CI was impaired and

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New Committer: Qing Lan

2018-11-20 Thread Qing Lan
Thanks everyone! Looking forward to contribute more to the community! Thanks, Qing On 11/20/18, 6:31 PM, "Steffen Rochel" wrote: Congratulation Qing! On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:29 PM Hagay Lupesko wrote: > Congrats Qing! Awesome to see you become a committer! > >

Re: [Anouncement] New Committer: Kellen Sunderland

2018-11-20 Thread Marco de Abreu
Welcome Kellen ! Am Mi., 21. Nov. 2018, 03:28 hat Steffen Rochel geschrieben: > Congratulation Kellen, well deserved! > Steffen > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:02 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > We are pleased to announce Kellen Sunderland as a new committer of Apache > > MXNet. Kellen has a

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release

2018-11-20 Thread kellen sunderland
3260) are under the >> review >> > and I think it can be merged in this week. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > --Patric >> > >> > >> > > -Original Message- >> > > From: Steffen Rochel [mailto:steffenroc..

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release

2018-11-20 Thread kellen sunderland
can be merged in this week. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Patric > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Steffen Rochel [mailto:steffenroc...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:57 AM > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubato

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release

2018-11-20 Thread Steffen Rochel
> > > -Original Message- > > From: Steffen Rochel [mailto:steffenroc...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:57 AM > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release > > > >

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New Committer: Qing Lan

2018-11-20 Thread Steffen Rochel
Congratulation Qing! On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:29 PM Hagay Lupesko wrote: > Congrats Qing! Awesome to see you become a committer! > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:26 PM Marco de Abreu > wrote: > > > Great to have your on board, Qing! > > > > Am Mi., 21. Nov. 2018, 01:24 hat Naveen Swamy > >

Re: [Announcement] New committer: Thomas Delteil

2018-11-20 Thread Steffen Rochel
Congratulation Thomas! On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:54 PM Thomas DELTEIL wrote: > Thanks Marco and PMC members, looking forward to the road ahead. > > All the best, > > Thomas Delteil > > Le mar. 20 nov. 2018 à 14:40, Marco de Abreu > a écrit : > > > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New Committer: Qing Lan

2018-11-20 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Congrats Qing! Awesome to see you become a committer! On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:26 PM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Great to have your on board, Qing! > > Am Mi., 21. Nov. 2018, 01:24 hat Naveen Swamy > geschrieben: > > > The Project Podling Management Committee (PPMC) for Apache MXNet has > >

Re: [Anouncement] New Committer: Kellen Sunderland

2018-11-20 Thread Steffen Rochel
Congratulation Kellen, well deserved! Steffen On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:02 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > We are pleased to announce Kellen Sunderland as a new committer of Apache > MXNet. Kellen has a sustained effort to the project both in the discussion > and code contributions. > > PRs > >

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New Committer: Qing Lan

2018-11-20 Thread Marco de Abreu
Great to have your on board, Qing! Am Mi., 21. Nov. 2018, 01:24 hat Naveen Swamy geschrieben: > The Project Podling Management Committee (PPMC) for Apache MXNet has > invited Qing Lan based on his contribution to MXNet Scala to become a > committer and we are pleased to announce that he has

Re: [Announcement] New committer: Thomas Delteil

2018-11-20 Thread Thomas DELTEIL
Thanks Marco and PMC members, looking forward to the road ahead. All the best, Thomas Delteil Le mar. 20 nov. 2018 à 14:40, Marco de Abreu a écrit : > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache MXNet (incubating) > has invited Thomas Delteil to become a committer and we are pleased >

Re: Splitting Jenkins pipelines - stop changes to Jenkinsfiles!

2018-11-20 Thread Marco de Abreu
I have just submitted my PR at https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/13344. Test jobs are available at http://jenkins.mxnet-ci-dev.amazon-ml.com/view/test-marco-mxnet/. As soon as I'm done with my tests, I will mark it as ready for review. Best regards, Marco On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at

Re: MXNet - Gluon - Audio

2018-11-20 Thread Sheng Zha
Hi Gaurav, The performance concerns is not just around librosa, but also the way to integrate it. librosa as a python library requires holding GIL when calling it, which makes it hard for asynchronous data preprocessing during training. Also, the API design hasn't been verified on the more

Re: Splitting Jenkins pipelines - stop changes to Jenkinsfiles!

2018-11-20 Thread Marco de Abreu
Thanks, Pedro! I have also been looking into that issue, but it seems like this would require changes in the groovy interpreter of Jenkins. From what I can tell, a refactor will give us multiple benefits (clarity and speed) aside from resolving this issue. Best regards, Marco Am Di., 20. Nov.

Re: [RESULTS] [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-20 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Great - congrats! On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:51 AM Anton Chernov wrote: > Dear MXNet community, > > I'm happy to announce the results of the vote. > > This vote passes with 8 +1 votes (4 binding) and no 0 or -1 votes. > > +1 votes > > * Carin / binding > * Indhu / binding > * Sandeep / binding >

Re: MXNet - Gluon - Audio

2018-11-20 Thread Gaurav Gireesh
Hi All! Following up on this PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/13241 I would need some comments or feedback regarding the API design : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Gluon+-+Audio The comments on the PR were mostly around *librosa *and its performance being a

Re: Splitting Jenkins pipelines - stop changes to Jenkinsfiles!

2018-11-20 Thread Pedro Larroy
I think this is a big problem, which has blocked us before. I want to point out that you are doing a great thing by avoiding everyone getting blocked by refactoring the pipelines. My concern is that we are kicking the can down the road and not addressing the root cause of the problem with is

Re: Splitting Jenkins pipelines - stop changes to Jenkinsfiles!

2018-11-20 Thread Marco de Abreu
Hello Steffen, no, there won't be any impact on the PR process or nightly regressions. Only the reporting will have to be updated with the new job links, but that should be a minor issue. To avoid any outage, I have been thinking about running both versions in parallel. Best regards, Marco On

Re: Splitting Jenkins pipelines - stop changes to Jenkinsfiles!

2018-11-20 Thread Steffen Rochel
Hi Marco - is there any impact on reporting, the PR process or nightly regression beside reduction in TAT? If yes, please elaborate. Steffen On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 8:05 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Hello, > > we ran into issues around the maximum filesize of the Jenkinsfile a few > times

Re: Should PR-860 (Use modernized range loops where possible) be reverted?

2018-11-20 Thread Carin Meier
Great. Thanks for the clarifications everyone. I think we are good then :) - Carin On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:43 AM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Carin, I don't think there's any issues merging this PR. The veto'd > aspect was around _requiring_ modern loop

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-20 Thread Anton Chernov
Thank you everyone, the vote is closed. I will send the results in a separate announcement. Best Anton пн, 19 нояб. 2018 г. в 15:44, Jim Jagielski : > +1 from me (macOS) > > > On Nov 16, 2018, at 2:52 AM, kellen sunderland < > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for organizing

Re: Should PR-860 (Use modernized range loops where possible) be reverted?

2018-11-20 Thread kellen sunderland
Hey Carin, I don't think there's any issues merging this PR. The veto'd aspect was around _requiring_ modern loop usage, and failing the build if clang tidy detected modern loops could be used but weren't. The original PR included a check for this and would fail any builds not using modern

Re: Should PR-860 (Use modernized range loops where possible) be reverted?

2018-11-20 Thread Anton Chernov
Hi Carin, The discussion [1] was about whether to enable automatic checks on using old behaviour in new PR's. Kellens PR [2] was about modernizing the actual code itself and was not up for voting, thus could not receive any technical veto votes. Per the discussion (as I have understood it), we

Re: Should PR-860 (Use modernized range loops where possible) be reverted?

2018-11-20 Thread Pedro Larroy
Hi all I think we have to make the clear separation between the thread votes on "uniformly adopting C++11 range loops in the MXNet project" and a PR which refactored code to be more legible and with improved variable names. Merging that PR doesn't imply that we have to uniformly adopt the

RE: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release

2018-11-19 Thread Zhao, Patric
fenroc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 2:57 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release > > On Friday the contributors working on Java API discovered a potential > performance problem with inference u

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release

2018-11-19 Thread Hagay Lupesko
+1 to wait until Java API work is ready since it is a major feature of the release, yet performance should be at least on par with Python. Also, I consider the MKL-DNN feature to be another major feature of the release, the performance boost on CPU is significant [1], as an example, ResNet50-v1

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release

2018-11-19 Thread Steffen Rochel
On Friday the contributors working on Java API discovered a potential performance problem with inference using Java API vs. Python. Investigation is ongoing. As the Java API is one of the main features for the upcoming release, I suggest to post-pone the code freeze towards end of this week.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-19 Thread Jim Jagielski
+1 from me (macOS) > On Nov 16, 2018, at 2:52 AM, kellen sunderland > wrote: > > Thanks for organizing the release Anton and for testing Carin and Steffen. > Lots of great fixes in this release. As we don't have the required 3 > committers I'd suggest extending the vote for a few days. > > I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-18 Thread Aaron Markham
I thought about it some more, and I don't think these are blockers. +1 non-binding Here's why: For 1) The website splits things out properly and that's the primary use case. If there's a demand for it, the jars for the docs can be build per version and split out as needed, and these can be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-17 Thread Aaron Markham
Website and docs for 1.3.x branch is working fine. However... Two things to note that could be blockers: 1) The Scala API going out with the JavaAPI bundled inside it: /api/scala/docs/index.html#org.apache.mxnet.javaapi.package - this is fixed in master with #13071. 2) `make docs` doesn't work

Re: LabelBot New Design in Production

2018-11-17 Thread Steffen Rochel
+1 for the proposal Thanks Harsh for your initiative to improve the productivity of the community. I agree with Sheng that care needs to be taken using the proposed label appropriately. Having a committer to actually close the issue is therefor a good gate. However, I'm in favor of such label

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-16 Thread sandeep krishnamurthy
+1 Build from source on Mac and Ubuntu 16.04. 1. Run GAN, DCGAN using Gluon on 1 GPU in Ubuntu and CPU Mac. 2. Convert a model to fp16, save and load in Gluon, perform inference. Best, Sandeep On Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 7:01 PM Indhu +1. > > Builds fine from source. Tested few CNN examples using

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-16 Thread Indhu
+1. Builds fine from source. Tested few CNN examples using Python binding. Everything looks fine. Thanks, Indu On Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 4:16 PM Roshani Nagmote +1 > Installed the release package on Ubuntu with CUDA, CUDNN enabled and ran > train_cifar10.py example successfully. > > Thanks, >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-16 Thread Roshani Nagmote
+1 Installed the release package on Ubuntu with CUDA, CUDNN enabled and ran train_cifar10.py example successfully. Thanks, Roshani On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 5:21 AM Anton Chernov wrote: > Thank you Carin, Steffen and Kellen for your votes. > > The results so far: > > * Binding * > > +1 votes: >

Re: LabelBot New Design in Production

2018-11-16 Thread sandeep krishnamurthy
I believe having this label - [suggest-closed] is helpful. 1. Adding this label is not an automated bot script that marks stale issues. A bot script would definitely be unwelcoming and also miss major issues just because it is stale. 2. This label is simply a way to identify issues that can be

Re: LabelBot New Design in Production

2018-11-16 Thread Sheng Zha
Thanks, Harsh. I saw that this was created and used on several issues and I removed it for now because: - the issues that they are used on issues that don't seem to be resolved. - it leaves the impression to the requesters that people think their issues are not worth people's attention in this

Re: LabelBot New Design in Production

2018-11-16 Thread Harsh Patel
Hey all, To help with how we handle issues for MXNet, I am proposing a new label be created called: [suggest-closed]. I, alongside many others, observe many stale issues which can be candidates for closure and searching for these of the 800+ issues we have is a daunting task. This label is meant

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-16 Thread Anton Chernov
Thank you Carin, Steffen and Kellen for your votes. The results so far: * Binding * +1 votes: - Carin * Non-Binding * +1 votes: - Kellen - Steffen So far, we've got only positive votes, but unfortunately not enough to conclude a result from the vote. I would like to remind everyone

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-16 Thread kellen sunderland
Just tested with 1.3.0 and those tests were failing for that release as well. Given it's not a regression I'm +1 (non-binding). On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:52 PM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for organizing the release Anton and for testing Carin and > Steffen.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-15 Thread kellen sunderland
Thanks for organizing the release Anton and for testing Carin and Steffen. Lots of great fixes in this release. As we don't have the required 3 committers I'd suggest extending the vote for a few days. I tested the following on MacOS 10.13, High Sierra: INCUBATING IN RELEASE FILE: check.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-15 Thread Steffen Rochel
+1 build on MacOS Sierra following instructions on https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Developer+Setup+on+Mac and run one training test. On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:34 PM Carin Meier wrote: > +1 - Clojure package tested fine with Scala jars > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:53 PM

Re: MXNet - Gluon - Audio

2018-11-15 Thread Gaurav Gireesh
Hi Lai! Thank you for your comments! Below are the answers to your comments/queries: 1) That's a good suggestion. However, I have added an example in the Pull request related to this: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/13241/commits/eabb68256d8fd603a0075eafcd8947d92e7df27f . I would be

Re: MXNet - Gluon - Audio

2018-11-15 Thread Gaurav Gireesh
Hi Sandeep! Thank you for looking into this. Below are the answers as I have them now: 1) As of now, I do not have any metric to compare librosa with other libraries currently available. I am working on this to find some. As far as community usage is concerned, I have come across blogs which

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.4.0 release

2018-11-15 Thread Anton Chernov
I'd like to remind everyone that 'code freeze' would mean cutting a v1.4.x release branch and all following fixes would need to be backported. Development on master can be continued as usual. Best Anton ср, 14 нояб. 2018 г. в 6:04, Steffen Rochel : > Dear MXNet community, > the agreed plan was

Re: [Question] Difference between "Feature" and "Feature request" labels in Github

2018-11-13 Thread Lin Yuan
Thanks guys for your prompt actions. I am so impressed! Lin On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:33 PM Sheng Zha wrote: > I was in the middle of transferring all items labeled with "Feature" to the > "Feature request" label when "Feature" label was deleted. I'm not sure who > deleted the "Feature" label

Re: [Question] Difference between "Feature" and "Feature request" labels in Github

2018-11-13 Thread Sheng Zha
I was in the middle of transferring all items labeled with "Feature" to the "Feature request" label when "Feature" label was deleted. I'm not sure who deleted the "Feature" label but it's gone now. -sz On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:05 PM Anirudh Acharya wrote: > This issue was raised before here -

Re: [Question] Difference between "Feature" and "Feature request" labels in Github

2018-11-13 Thread Acharya, Anirudh
Thanks for doing this. - Anirudh On Nov 13, 2018 5:25 PM, Sheng Zha wrote: Oh, I see. I was moving the other 80 or so, so it was probably a race-condition. Anyway, thanks for being eager to help. -sz On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:24 PM Naveen Swamy wrote: > done now, removed the feature label,

Re: [Question] Difference between "Feature" and "Feature request" labels in Github

2018-11-13 Thread Sheng Zha
Oh, I see. I was moving the other 80 or so, so it was probably a race-condition. Anyway, thanks for being eager to help. -sz On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:24 PM Naveen Swamy wrote: > done now, removed the feature label, there were 4 issues with that label > but also had Feature Request. > > On

Re: [Question] Difference between "Feature" and "Feature request" labels in Github

2018-11-13 Thread Naveen Swamy
done now, removed the feature label, there were 4 issues with that label but also had Feature Request. On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:05 PM Anirudh Acharya wrote: > This issue was raised before here - > >

Re: [Question] Difference between "Feature" and "Feature request" labels in Github

2018-11-13 Thread Naveen Swamy
there were a few more that had 'Feature' as label but didn't show up in the filter search, I manually applied the `Feature Request` on them On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:12 PM Naveen Swamy wrote: > done now, removed the feature label, there were 4 issues with that label > but also had Feature

Re: [Question] Difference between "Feature" and "Feature request" labels in Github

2018-11-13 Thread Anirudh Acharya
This issue was raised before here - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3e988e6bd82cb2d69ba20c21bf763952ed22a5732e61f6fba1f89ac8@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E We need someone with committer privileges to fix it. Thanks Anirudh On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 4:36 PM Lin Yuan wrote: > Dear Community,

Re: Nightly/Weekly tests for examples

2018-11-13 Thread Aaron Markham
8 at 10:38 AM Anirudh Acharya > mailto:anirudhk...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > Hi Ankit, > > I have a few concerns about testing examples. Before writing tests for > examples, > > - you will need to first decide what constitutes a test for an > example, > because

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1.rc0

2018-11-13 Thread Carin Meier
+1 - Clojure package tested fine with Scala jars On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:53 PM Anton Chernov wrote: > Dear MXNet community, > > This is the vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.3.1. Voting > will start now, on Monday the 12th of November 2018 and close on 14:00 > Thursday the

Re: Nightly/Weekly tests for examples

2018-11-13 Thread Khedia, Ankit
rt for certain values. Just testing if an example is a compilable python script will not add much value in my opinion. - And testing for example output and results will require a re-write of many of the examples, because many of them currently just have print statements as outputs an

Re: MXNet - Gluon - Audio

2018-11-13 Thread Lai Wei
Hi Gaurav, Thanks for starting this. I see the PR is out , left some initial reviews, good work! In addition to Sandeep's queries, I have the following: 1. Can we include some simple classic audio dataset for users to directly import and try

Re: Nightly/Weekly tests for examples

2018-11-13 Thread Naveen Swamy
decide what constitutes a test for an > > example, > > >because examples are not API calls, which will have return > statements > > > and > > >the test can just call the API and assert for certain values. Just > > > testing > > >if an exam

Re: MXNet - Gluon - Audio

2018-11-13 Thread sandeep krishnamurthy
Thanks, Gaurav for starting this initiative. The design document is detailed and gives all the information. Starting to add this in "Contrib" is a good idea while we expect a few rough edges and cleanups to follow. I had the following queries: 1. Is there any analysis comparing LibROSA with other

Re: Nightly/Weekly tests for examples

2018-11-13 Thread Aaron Markham
t;the test can just call the API and assert for certain values. Just > > testing > >if an example is a compilable python script will not add much value in > > my > >opinion. > >- And testing for example output and results will require a re-write &

Re: Nightly/Weekly tests for examples

2018-11-12 Thread sandeep krishnamurthy
d >the test can just call the API and assert for certain values. Just > testing >if an example is a compilable python script will not add much value in > my >opinion. >- And testing for example output and results will require a re-write of >many of the examp

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-12 Thread Anton Chernov
ose\case.py", line >>>> 197, in runTest >>>> self.test(*self.arg) >>>> File >>>> "C:\jenkins_slave\workspace\ut-python-gpu\tests\python\unittest\common.py", >>>> line 173, in test_new >>>> orig_test(*args, **kwargs) >>&g

Re: Nightly/Weekly tests for examples

2018-11-12 Thread Anirudh Acharya
for certain values. Just testing if an example is a compilable python script will not add much value in my opinion. - And testing for example output and results will require a re-write of many of the examples, because many of them currently just have print statements as outputs and does

Re: Catch divide-by-zero floating number exception in backend

2018-11-12 Thread Pedro Larroy
Hi Could you be specific about the bugs? While we could use this for debug some particular errors as you describe I would think that in the general case you would want to rely on unit testing and conditional checks for very small numbers on the denominator if you can’t have a NaN. I think we

Re: Run Sphinx checks on MXNet CI

2018-11-11 Thread Anirudh Acharya
Thanks for the reply Aaron. Once the existing Sphinx errors are fixed and codebase is cleaned up, lets definitely revisit this and try to add a Sphinx build into the CI pipeline so that we can prevent MXNet documentation from breaking. Thanks Anirudh On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:16 PM Aaron Markham

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-10 Thread Anton Chernov
.py", >>> line 5853, in test_dropout >>> check_dropout_ratio(0.0, shape) >>> File >>> "C:\jenkins_slave\workspace\ut-python-gpu\tests\python\unittest\test_operator.py", >>> line 5797, in check_dropout_ratio >>> assert exe.

Re: Nightly/Weekly tests for examples

2018-11-09 Thread Marco de Abreu
or-mxnet/issues/12800 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11895 > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/13196 > > Some of the examples failed after API changes and remained uncaught until > a user reported the issue. While the community is actively working on >

Re: CLion dev setup tutorial

2018-11-09 Thread Jim Jagielski
Nice work! Thx for this. > On Nov 7, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Jose Luis Contreras Santos > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I recently published a guide on how to setup CLion for MXNet development on > Mac. It's published on Confluence here >

Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Separating PMC and Committership

2018-11-09 Thread Steffen Rochel
Thanks Carin for driving discussion and vote. Looking forward seeing the changes implemented and eligible contributors elected to committer and PMC members. Steffen On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:19 AM Carin Meier wrote: > The vote passed to separate PMC and Committership - > >

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-09 Thread Anton Chernov
assert exe.outputs[0].asnumpy().min() == min_value >> AssertionError: >> >> begin captured logging << >> common: INFO: Setting test np/mx/python random seeds, use >> MXNET_TEST_SEED=428273587 to reproduce. >

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-09 Thread Anton Chernov
> common: INFO: Setting test np/mx/python random seeds, use > MXNET_TEST_SEED=428273587 to reproduce. > - >> end captured logging << - > > The test is enabled on master: > > Re-enables test_operator.test_dropout &

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-09 Thread Anton Chernov
oduce. - >> end captured logging << - The test is enabled on master: Re-enables test_operator.test_dropout https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12717 And there are no failures for it [1]. * KVStore tests Unfortunately, KVStore tests fail as well. http://jen

Re: LabelBot New Design in Production

2018-11-08 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Thanks for this useful contribution Harsh! +1 to an updated issue template and +1 to Marco's idea as well Anything that helps the community triage and make it easier for folks that file issues is greatly appreciated Hagay On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:05 PM Marco de Abreu wrote: > Great job,

Re: MKLDNN dynamically linked

2018-11-08 Thread Hagay Lupesko
--Original Message- > > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 7:30 AM > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > > Cc: d...@mxnet.apache.org > > Subject: Re: MKLDNN dynamically linked > > > > I think

Re: Up-streaming MXNet HIP Port

2018-11-08 Thread Karnam, Srihari
Dear team, Please review this and feedback: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Upstreaming+of+Mxnet+HIP+port Regards From: Pedro Larroy Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 5:38 PM To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Up-streaming

Re: Map OpenCV assertions to mxnet::Error

2018-11-08 Thread Anirudh
; These type of issues have been reported before and I see a high level > action plan has been documented in the wiki: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Improved+Exception+Handling+in+MXNet+-+Phase+2 > > See also my previous pull request, which prevents OpenCV as

Re: Run Sphinx checks on MXNet CI

2018-11-08 Thread Aaron Markham
Hi Anirudh, Once the existing errors in docs building are cleaned up, I'm all for having CI bubble up a build break when docs are broken by a PR. That way we're keeping things up to date and not letting a minor bug turn into a serious issue for the entire API documentation. One break causes a

Re: LabelBot New Design in Production

2018-11-08 Thread Marco de Abreu
Great job, Harsh! That's a very good idea, Naveen. Harsh, Qing and I have been thinking about the bot "welcoming" the user when they create an issue or pull request by creating a comment as soon as the thread gets created. This message could contain basic instructions like these commands,

Re: LabelBot New Design in Production

2018-11-08 Thread Naveen Swamy
Great job!, this is very helpful to triage issues!, users when creating a new Issue could themselves tag the issues. May be we should add that to the issue template? On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:54 PM Harsh Patel wrote: > Hey all, > The upgraded label bot has been pushed into production. Current >

RE: MKLDNN dynamically linked

2018-11-08 Thread Zhao, Patric
+1 for static link :) Feel free to let us know if anything we can help. > -Original Message- > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 7:30 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Cc: d...@mxnet.apache.org > S

Re: MKLDNN dynamically linked

2018-11-08 Thread kellen sunderland
I think we should bias towards static linking. It should make using mxnet easier in a lot of cases for users. As long as the license permits static linking (i.e. is non-gpl) I'd +1 static linking for portability and ease of use. The only caveat would be in cases where the package size would

Re: MKLDNN dynamically linked

2018-11-08 Thread Sheng Zha
+1. Ideally, MKLDNN can be statically linked. mxnet-mkl relies on Make for building it so help is wanted on mxnet. -sz On 2018/11/08 21:28:50, Alex Zai wrote: > Currently in mxnet-mkl the libmxnet.so is dynamically linked to to > libmkldnn.so.0. This is known to cause some issues if the wrong

Re: [VOTE] Separating PMC and Committership

2018-11-08 Thread Qing Lan
+1 (non-binding) On 11/8/18, 2:41 PM, "kellen sunderland" wrote: +1 (non-binding) On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:37 AM Thomas DELTEIL wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Le jeu. 8 nov. 2018 à 10:04, Carin Meier a écrit : > > > Reminder - Vote ends tomorrow-

Re: [VOTE] Separating PMC and Committership

2018-11-08 Thread kellen sunderland
+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:37 AM Thomas DELTEIL wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Le jeu. 8 nov. 2018 à 10:04, Carin Meier a écrit : > > > Reminder - Vote ends tomorrow- Friday Nov 9th at 6:00 am EST > > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:29 AM Carin Meier > wrote: > > > > > This is a

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-08 Thread Naveen Swamy
Anton, I don't think we need to add the Mac OS tests for 1.3.1 branch since travis CI is timing out and creates blockers, it also did not exist for v1.3.0. On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:04 AM Anton Chernov wrote: > A PR to fix the tests: > > Remove test for non existing index copy operator

Re: [VOTE] Separating PMC and Committership

2018-11-08 Thread Thomas DELTEIL
+1 (non-binding) Le jeu. 8 nov. 2018 à 10:04, Carin Meier a écrit : > Reminder - Vote ends tomorrow- Friday Nov 9th at 6:00 am EST > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:29 AM Carin Meier wrote: > > > This is a procedural vote on whether to separate the committer and PPMC > > levels in the project.

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-08 Thread Anton Chernov
Thank you everyone for your support and suggestions. All proposed PR's have been merged. We will tag the release candidate and start the vote on Friday, the 9th of November 2018. Unfortunately after the merges the tests started to fail:

Re: Requesting access for SLACK

2018-11-08 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Invite sent Gaurav! On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:33 PM Gaurav Gireesh wrote: > Hi! > I would like to request access to the Slack channel for MXNet. > > Thanks and regards, > Gaurav Gireesh >

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-08 Thread Anton Chernov
A PR to fix the tests: Remove test for non existing index copy operator (v1.3.x) https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/13180 Best Anton чт, 8 нояб. 2018 г. в 10:05, Anton Chernov : > An addition has been made to include MacOS tests for the v1.3.x branch: > > [MXNET-908] Enable

Re: [VOTE] Separating PMC and Committership

2018-11-08 Thread Carin Meier
Reminder - Vote ends tomorrow- Friday Nov 9th at 6:00 am EST On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:29 AM Carin Meier wrote: > This is a procedural vote on whether to separate the committer and PPMC > levels in the project. The current state is that a user is considered as > both a committer and a PPMC

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-08 Thread Anton Chernov
An addition has been made to include MacOS tests for the v1.3.x branch: [MXNET-908] Enable minimal OSX Travis build (v1.3.x) https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/13179 It includes following PR's for master: [MXNET-908] Enable minimal OSX Travis build

Re: [RESULT][LAZY VOTE] Next MXNet release

2018-11-07 Thread Sheng Zha
se be merged into patch release: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12631 > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12603 > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12499 > > &g

Re: [Mentor needed] Create ticket to add webhook for the new label bot

2018-11-07 Thread Marco de Abreu
Thanks Sebastian for creating the ticket. The webhook has successfully been created. During our production tests, we have encountered some issues which will delay the release by a bit. From that point, we don't need further support from Infra and we're able to make the changes on our side. Best

Re: Requesting Access for SLACK

2018-11-07 Thread Steffen Rochel
Welcome Gavin, added you to slack. Steffen On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 6:52 AM Gavin M. Bell wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to please have access to slack for MXNet. > > -- > Sincerely, > Gavin M. Bell > > "Never mistake a clear view for a short distance." > -Paul Saffo >

Re: Requesting slack access

2018-11-07 Thread Steffen Rochel
Hi Kamaci - welcome to Apache MXNet project. Please let us know what you working on and reach out if you need help. Steffen On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:01 AM Furkan KAMACI wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to access to Slack. > > Kind Regards, > Furkan KAMACI >

Re: [RESULT][LAZY VOTE] Next MXNet release

2018-11-07 Thread kellen sunderland
s://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12603 > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12499 > > >>> > > >>> -Kellen > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:17 AM Zhao, Patric > > >>> wrote: > >

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-07 Thread Anton Chernov
Yes, you are right about the versions wording, thanks for clarification. A performance improvement can be considered a bugfix as well. I see no big risks in including PR's by Haibin and Lin into the patch release. @Haibin, if you can reopen the PR's they should be good to go for the relase,

Re: [Announce] Upcoming Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.3.1 patch release

2018-11-07 Thread Sheng Zha
Hi Anton, I hear your concern about a simultaneous 1.4.0 release and it certainly is a valid one. Regarding the release, let’s agree on the language first. According to semver.org, 1.3.1 release is considered patch release, which is for backward compatible bug fixes, while 1.4.0 release is

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >