Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation

As Tianqi and Sheng mentioned, given the fact that we are able to do deployment in a possibly better way (correct me if I was wrong), I would love to +1 to Pedro’s proposal. In the meantime, as a healthy open source community, I also agree with Naveen’s point that we should do more homework for

Re: [Discuss] MXNet Python < 3.6 Support Deprecation

> > a > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > company being unable to use Python 3.7). What do you > > think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > >

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC][WIP] RFC Issue Mirroring to d...@mxnet.apache.org (#15749)

+1 for the proposal! BTW shall we have an option to block messages sent by the label bot to avoid too much traffic? -- You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Discuss] MXNet Python 2 Support Deprecation

+1 On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:12 AM Anirudh Acharya wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:03 AM Marco de Abreu > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > -Marco > > > > Sheng Zha schrieb am Do., 18. Juli 2019, 19:59: > > > > > Dear MXNet community, > > > > > > I'd like to reopen the discussion on

Re: [RFC] Integrate TVM into Apache MXNet

Thank you for the nice proposal! Looking forward to the integration :-) Thanks, Junru On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:18 PM YiZhi Liu wrote: > Kindly remind people take a look at the posted RFC: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15465 and free free > to leave your questions and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.5.0.rc0

ate, the model is not public. We should be able to > see this problem in a public model using LSTM I think. > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:15 AM Junru Shao > wrote: > > > > Hi Pedro, > > > > Thanks for brining this up! > > > > Could you provide y

Re: [VOTE] Remove conflicting OpenMP from CMake builds

+1 for doing a [discuss] thread. Listing historic discussion threads/issues/prs on omp would be helpful as well. By the way, I suggest that we remain purely technical by discussing pros and cons. Let’s not include others’ names in technical discussion. Thanks, Junru On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at

[ANNOUNCE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1

Dear all, The Apache MXNet (incubating) community is happy to announce Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1! Apache MXNet (incubating) is a deep learning framework designed for both efficiency and flexibility. It allows you to mix symbolic and imperative programming to maximize efficiency and

Re: Report of MXNet NumPy Project Status

 Nice progress Jun! On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:12 AM Jun Wu wrote: > Dear Community, > > A few months ago, we submitted this RFC > proposing > introducing NumPy-compatible coding experience into MXNet. As it has been > some time since

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.5.0 Release Plan

Hi folks, Here I may have a release blocker for 1.5.0 about implementation of dynamic shape mechanism, which somehow conflicts with Gluon's deferred initialization [1]. [1] https://github.com/dmlc/gluon-nlp/issues/706 On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:09 PM Anirudh Subramanian wrote: > Hi Lai, > >

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

. Clearly you understand what he meant > from > > > the context whether you prefer to call IR in compilers or data-flow in > > > distributed systems. You could very well say lets use this terminology > to > > > have a common understanding instead of saying go

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

; > the context whether you prefer to call IR in compilers or data-flow in > > distributed systems. You could very well say lets use this terminology to > > have a common understanding instead of saying go learn the basic > concepts. > > Before building a cool brand,

Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet

Hi Pedro, I really appreciate that a diligent and talented engineer eagerly wants to improve our system, and am very thankful that you have done so much for our community. However, I do want to mention some points that I believe I should mention. While I agree with Tianqi that every design has

Re: Python2 End of Life

+1 On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Aaron Markham wrote: > +1 for the pledge and to start moving things to Python 3. > I think our installation instructions and tutorials can be updated to > default to Python3 and we should update Python2-only tutorials. I know > we have a handful of those, and

Re: [RESULTS] [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1.rc0

:59 PM Junru Shao wrote: > Dear MXNet community, > > I'm happy to announce the results of the vote. > > This vote passes with 12 +1 votes (3 binding), no 0 votes, and 1 -1 vote. > +1 votes > * Sheng Zha / binding > * Qing Lan / binding > * Carin Meier / binding > *

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1.rc0

Thank you Anirudh for your quick response! I will change the result accordingly :-) On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 11:58 PM Anirudh Subramanian wrote: > No worries, maybe its just something with my setup. > Moving my vote to +0, pending someone else check. > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 11:39 P

[RESULTS] [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1.rc0

. Best regards, Junru Shao [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6c140f4c180c259dd1b7f4ecf36f2d083ed810cd68b37d7f635f5614@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E [2] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/mxnet.html

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1.rc0

tree/0a0e8addf92e1287fd7a25c6314016b8c0138dee > > Anirudh > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM Junru Shao wrote: > > > Hey Anirudh, > > > > Although the vote has been closed, I am very interested in digging into > > this issue. > > > > I b

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1.rc0

not a > PPMC > > > member, so my vote is non-binding. > > > > > > Best, > > > Damien > > > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:19 AM kellen sunderland < > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] add conan support for Apache MXNet (incubating)

hing. > > > Everyone know how to include a sub-directory in cmake in one line > probably, because not all of your dependencies are using CMake to build, so > you can't simply include them into cmake in one line. > > yours sincerely, Konstantin > > пт, 3 мая 2019 г. в 23:10,

Re: [VOTE] add conan support for Apache MXNet (incubating)

I am actually a bit concerned about the security issues. We are asked to download binaries from third-party websites, which are not controlled or validated by Apache. Although it is claimed to be “decentralized”, I am really not convinced where the security comes from. In the meantime,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1.rc0

; >> docs, > > >>>>>> so hard to tell if there's an issue. I'll assume not given the > > >>>>>> successful generation of the API docs. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:

[VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.1.rc0

= approve +0 = no opinion -1 = disapprove (provide reason) Best regards, Junru Shao

Re: MXNet 1.4.1 Release Proposal

Dear community, We would love to follow up to remind that our release candidate 0 for Apache MXNet 1.4.1 will be cut by the end of the day. We will open a voting thread for this release tonight. Thanks, Junru On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:57 PM Junru Shao wrote: > Thanks for the great opportun

Re: MXNET 1.4.1 - Release Timeline

in this thread. Thank you so much! Junru On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:46 PM Junru Shao wrote: > Hi All, > > Sheng Zha and I are starting the process to prepare for Apache MXNet > (incubating) 1.4.1 patch release. > > Please find the plan and status for this relea

MXNET 1.4.1 - Release Timeline

nclude it in this release, please make sure to follow up with this thread so that we could keep track of these additional fixes and update the release notes. Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions. Thanks, Junru Shao

Re: duplicated nnvm code

We should remove 3rdparty/tvm/nnvm/gradient.cc.o imo On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:44 PM Pedro Larroy wrote: > Hi > > I found that src/nnvm and 3rdparty/tvm/nnvm/src/pass/ has duplicated > code that we are linking in: > > ./CMakeFiles/mxnet_static.dir/3rdparty/tvm/nnvm/src/pass/gradient.cc.o >

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

ideas :-) On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:52 PM Junru Shao wrote: > We have a systematic solution to go without ABI headache. I am struggling > with some errants, and will share our proposal here as soon as I could. > This will be very interesting topic to discuss. Let's work hard together &

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

We have a systematic solution to go without ABI headache. I am struggling with some errants, and will share our proposal here as soon as I could. This will be very interesting topic to discuss. Let's work hard together and make it perfect :-) On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:43 PM Pedro Larroy wrote:

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

Really nice improvement over MXNet's usability! I suggest that we could make numpy-compatible behavior default in 2.0. On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Jun Wu wrote: > Dear Community, > > A while ago, we sent out an RFC > discussing the >

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

+1 for this proposal. Probably this is doable prior to 2.0? While I totally agree with Tianqi that in the sense of a compiler, we should make layout transformation a separate pass, I would love to mention that it will be non-trivial engineering effort given the fact that our current NNVM does not

Re: MXNet 1.4.1 Release Proposal

te: > > > Thanks Hagay for proposing the release and for Junru to volunteer to > drive > > the release. I will help Junru as the committer for this release. > > > > -sz > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:18 PM Junru Shao > wrote: > > > > > H

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

+1 Thanks Marco for sharing this! It is great to see people agree with this feature and we actually have been planning for this for a while. We would love to share this plan as soon as possible. On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:42 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > Just to clarify. I am not questioning the

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

a build logic issue. > > > > -sz > > > > On 2019/04/07 18:56:43, Aaron Markham > > wrote: > > > +1 > > > Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just > > > install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS.

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in sense of performance, portability, or anything else? On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries ( > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system

I agree with Tianqi and Marco. Probably what should happen is to let cmake be the default in some minor release, and completely deprecate makefiles in 2.0. On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:23 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > I think this is rather about the depreciation of the make based build > system. We

Re: MXNet 1.4.1 Release Proposal

Hi Hagay, I have some experiences in MXNet development, and would love to volunteer for driving this release. Thank you so much! Best, Junru On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:51 PM Hagay Lupesko wrote: > Hello MXNet community, > > As previously discussed in [0 > < >

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

@Lin Sure! Let's work together to promote MXNet Gluon, GluonNLP and GluonCV. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:44 PM Lin Yuan wrote: > @Junru I fully agree with what you said. What I meant is we need to make > more customers know about them. > > Lin > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

initiative can be(and should be) brought to dev@.. > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:08 PM Junru Shao > > wrote: > > > > > Probably we should figure out how to explain MXNet Gluon to customers. > In > > > this case, I agree with @Mu that >

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

exemplary codebase for anyone who wants to use Gluon elegantly. It does help a lot for real-world development, compared with simplest examples like tutorial. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:07 PM Junru Shao wrote: > Probably we should figure out how to explain MXNet Gluon to customers. In > thi

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

models and training techniques out-of-the-box. Any other ideas? On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:54 PM Pedro Larroy wrote: > +1 to MXNet Gluon given the feedbacks and explanations from everyone so > far. > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:09 PM Junru Shao > wrote: > > > > I feel like

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

@Tianqi For sure GluonCV and GluonNLP should go with the current name. No reason to change. @Lin If customers are interested, I guess we could say they are awesome toolkits built on top of MXNet Gluon API, and perfect illustration to write clever and powerful code on the top of it.

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

dev list seems to be reordering my post...To clarify, I am opposed to renaming or making it disappear because of potential distraction, but suggest using MXNet Gluon instead of Gluon, which looks more aligned. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:08 PM Junru Shao wrote: > I feel like MXNet Gluon is a g

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

-1 for now. Respectfully I have some concerns. First, Gluon is about a new programming paradigm, neither symbolic programming nor imperative, but both. It brings concrete benefit for both prototyping and deployment. To help customers best enjoy the benefit of Gluon, we need more advertisement,

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

I feel like MXNet Gluon is a good name. You don't lose customers who have been familiar with MXNet, nor lose customers who are used to MXNet symbolic. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:07 PM Davydenko, Denis < dzianis.davydze...@gmail.com> wrote: > As subject suggests this is a proposal for re-branding

Re: [RFC] Integrating the new MXNet website

Hi Aston, I like the idea of having a standalone "ecosystem" section that could potentially help customers search for information. Also, the comment area looks really awesome. Thanks, Junru On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM Aaron Markham wrote: > Weird - wonder why the dot was removed... >

Re: MXNet Community Monthly Updates

Hi Mu, Thanks for proposing this! Strongly agree with the newsletter - this would be the most economically efficient way to enhance community involvement. In addition to the draft wiki pages, should we send posts like "Call for newsletter articles" to dev@ list with some frequency? This could

Re: Embedded World 2019 Robotics Demo

Hi Anton, Would love to know more about this great demo! Will you guys share video clips? Cheers, Junru On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:11 PM Isabel Drost-Fromm wrote: > Hi, > > Sounds interesting. Can you share more on what you are showing and what > role mxnet plays? > > Also, who's that "we"

Re: [DISCUSS] Process to remove deprecated operators

Hi Lin, I would love to share some immature ideas about deprecating operators. Not only adopting semantic versioning, but also should we provide enough informative error message for customers to understand how to replace deprecated operators with new ones. Thanks, Junru On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at

Re: CI woes pt.2

this a bit > > strangelet me know how it goes and tomorrow morning I'll follow it > up! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Per > > > > On Wed., 27 Feb. 2019, 10:40 pm Junru Shao, > > wrote: > > > > > Hey Per, > > > > > >

Re: CI woes pt.2

Hey Per, CI for my PR still fails ( http://jenkins.mxnet-ci.amazon-ml.com/blue/organizations/jenkins/mxnet-validation%2Fwindows-gpu/detail/PR-14217/13/pipeline), saying "ERROR: Queue task was cancelled". Should I rebase? Thanks, Junru On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:36 AM Junru S

Re: CI woes pt.2

Finally! Thanks Per for the hard work! On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 6:35 AM Per da Silva wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The PR temporarily disabling windows tests has been merged, so the windows > checks shouldn't block progress for the time being. Please retrigger any > PRs you have open. We are still

Re: slack channel

Hi Aston, Sent the link just now. Welcome! Cheers, Junru On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:44 PM Aston Zhang wrote: > Could someone add me to MXNet Slack channel? > > Thanks, > Aston >

Request to join slack channel

Hi, may I request to join the slack channel? Thanks!

Re: How should MXNet treat nan values?

However, I am not 100% sure how much performance will be sacrificed if we stick to NumPy's approach which seems to check numeral exceptions on each step. I believe it will be great if we could make the default setting to be "no checking", and leave users an option to turn on these numeral

Re: How should MXNet treat nan values?

I think it is worth discussing. NunPy has defined its own rules to handle with numeral exceptions, which makes a lot of sense to me. [Link](https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/user/misc.html#how-numpy-handles-numerical-exceptions) On 2018/07/20 22:19:46, Leonard Lausen wrote: > Hello MXNet

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

+1 Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It will be great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I believe Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution. On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha wrote: > Hi, > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

+1 Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It will be great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I believe Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution. On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha wrote: > Hi, > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github