Re: C++ api issue labeling

+1 to combining feature and feature request On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:37 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > +1 to combining feature and feature request > > Haibin Lin schrieb am Do., 12. Juli 2018, > 10:15: > > > +1 merging "feature" with "feature request" > > > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:59 PM,

Re: C++ api issue labeling

+1 to combining feature and feature request Haibin Lin schrieb am Do., 12. Juli 2018, 10:15: > +1 merging "feature" with "feature request" > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Anirudh Acharya > wrote: > > > There is another instance of label duplication - We have labels > "Feature" ( > >

Re: C++ api issue labeling

+1 merging "feature" with "feature request" On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Anirudh Acharya wrote: > There is another instance of label duplication - We have labels "Feature" ( > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/labels/Feature ) and "Feature > Request" ( >

Re: C++ api issue labeling

There is another instance of label duplication - We have labels "Feature" ( https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/labels/Feature ) and "Feature Request" ( https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/labels/Feature%20request ). I don't think there is much difference between these two labels. It

Re: C++ api issue labeling

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I will work with a committer to get this updated ASAP. On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:55 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > +1 to renaming to Backend > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:13 AM Hagay Lupesko wrote: > > > Thanks Lin for your feedback. > > Bumping again to

Re: C++ api issue labeling

+1 to renaming to Backend On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:13 AM Hagay Lupesko wrote: > Thanks Lin for your feedback. > Bumping again to get more feedback before concluding. > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:53 AM Lin Yuan wrote: > > > I agree with Hagay. Using "Backend" as label makes it much easier to

Re: C++ api issue labeling

Thanks Lin for your feedback. Bumping again to get more feedback before concluding. On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:53 AM Lin Yuan wrote: > I agree with Hagay. Using "Backend" as label makes it much easier to track. > "C++" label only describes the language used in implementation, "Backend" > better

Re: C++ api issue labeling

Thanks everyone for chiming in and clarifying. It seems that the "C++" label name is confusing for our community since it can be interpreted as both the CPP API and the backend... As an anecdote, this issue [1 ] is labeled as "C++" but is

Re: C++ api issue labeling

Agree with Anirudh, they are different things. Maybe change the "C++" label to "backend" would be more informative? On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM Anirudh wrote: > Hi Hagay, > > I think we should keep these two labels seperate since they mean different > things. > The C++ label refers to the

Re: C++ api issue labeling

Hi Hagay, I think we should keep these two labels seperate since they mean different things. The C++ label refers to the issue for MXNet backend and the CPP package refers to the CPP language binding for mxnet. We can still make C++ API great again irrespective by filtering out CPP package issues

Re: C++ api issue labeling

Hello Hagay, as far as I understand, the CPP Package label is for the C++ Frontend which is generated at [1] while the C++ label is intended for the backend. But I agree that we don't really have to label backend bugs as C++, so we could just deprecate the CPP Package label and move everything

C++ api issue labeling

Hey community, I was going over the open GitHub issues for MXNet, and noticed that we have two labels for the CPP API: "CPP package", "C++" Wanted to suggest we remove "CPP package" and just stick to "C++" This will make it easier for the community to classify issues and focus on making the C++