Hi,
> Here's the second update. At the moment we are only missing ICLAs from 20
> (out of 70) contributors, accounting for 31 (out of 913) commits left.
IMO That's still a significant number of commits and people.
> Regarding whether the contributors are employed by a company that requires
>
Hi,
Here's the second update. At the moment we are only missing ICLAs from 20
(out of 70) contributors, accounting for 31 (out of 913) commits left.
3 @zhenlinluo
3 @jpauwels
3 @hjk41
3 @DrustZ
2 @zhangchen-qinyinghua
2 @yinghu5
2 @reyoung
1 @xinyu-intel
1 @xingmingjie
1 @qiaohaijun
1 @loveisp
1
Hi,
In the case of Intel and other companies, it may be that their employee
contracts do not allow employees to contribute to OS projects. It more likely
that the contributor doesn’t own copyright of the code but their employer does.
A CCLA give a clear indication that the contributors are
Justin,
Are you OK with proceeding?
Regards,
Sheng
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen
wrote:
> As long as we have CLA covering for the majority of the code(which I
> believe so), I think we should be good.
> Just like the case of Apache only requires iCLA from committers.
>
> The
As long as we have CLA covering for the majority of the code(which I
believe so), I think we should be good.
Just like the case of Apache only requires iCLA from committers.
The rationale is that normal contributions are already in the form of ALv2,
in the case of a(unlikely) dispute, the
Hi Justin,
Thanks, that's a good point. I think we have already received CCLA from
Intel. I will take that into account when providing the next update.
Regards,
Sheng
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:39 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Several peoples in below list are from Intel and I have added
Hi,
> Several peoples in below list are from Intel and I have added them into CC.
Has Intel signed a CCLA? And if so does it list people who are allowed to
contribute to this project? Are there any others on that list who employer’s
may need to also sign CCLAs if we don’t have them?
Thanks,
l Michael ; Bob Paulin
> ; wei...@apache.org; jason...@apache.org; Chen, Ciyong
>
> Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's an update on this issue. We are still missing the ICLAs from 32 (out
> of 70)
> mshadow contributors, account
Hi,
Here's an update on this issue. We are still missing the ICLAs from 32 (out
of 70) mshadow contributors, accounting for a total of 62 (out of 913)
commits. (@ap-hynninen passed away a few years ago and is not included). I
reached out to them through email and other channels to collect ICLA
Zha
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 3:29 PM
To: Justin Mclean
Cc: d...@mxnet.apache.org; Wall Michael ; Bob Paulin
; wei...@apache.org; jason...@apache.org
Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Hi,
No, I don’t think we used ICLAs for mshadow before.
Out of the 42 people who
Hi,
No, I don’t think we used ICLAs for mshadow before.
Out of the 42 people who made more than 1 commit or more than 10 lines of code
change to mshadow, 26 signed ICLA with Apache (and additionally one member is
unfortunately deceased...). Would this be a better criteria as “the major
Hi,
> Thanks for clarifying. All contributors who made more than 10 commits to
> msahdow before are committers of MXNet, so their ICLAs should already be on
> file: tqchen, bingxu, eric.xie, sxjscience, mli, yajiedesign [1]. If you
> think this is OK, one of the mentors or I can start the
Thanks for clarifying. All contributors who made more than 10 commits to
msahdow before are committers of MXNet, so their ICLAs should already be on
file: tqchen, bingxu, eric.xie, sxjscience, mli, yajiedesign [1]. If you
think this is OK, one of the mentors or I can start the notification.
Hi,
> Thank you, Justin. Though I’m still uncertain about what the definition of IP
> clearance process is.
The bit you quoted there is for an initial code base, it the second part of
that document you need to look at.
In short as well as the SGA you need to get signed ICLA from all of the
Thank you, Justin. Though I’m still uncertain about what the definition of IP
clearance process is, I found the following paragraphs that seem relevant.
Sounds like we need three votes from our mentors here for this acceptance. If
that’s the case, I can start a vote on it.
Regards,
Sheng
>
Hi,
See also:
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html
Thanks,
Justin
HI,
> Yes and yes. I filed the software grant and received confirmation from
> secretary@.
As well as the software grant the incline code base needs to go through IP
clearance. See [1] option 2.
IP clearance involves making sure all all contributors have signed ICLAs and
there are no license
Hi Justin,
Yes and yes. I filed the software grant and received confirmation from
secretary@.
I’m not sure if I should be updating the page, and if so, how.
Regards,
Sheng
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 1:59 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Has the IP clearance process been followed? I don't
Hi,
Has the IP clearance process been followed? I don't see it listed on this page
[1]
Does the current release being voted on contain this code?
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
I found the template in the link Marco provided and filed the software
grant to the secretary.
Sheng
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:09 AM Michael Wall wrote:
> Yes, to secretary@. Do you need a template?
>
> Thanks Sheng
>
> Mike
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sheng Zha wrote:
> >
> > Hi
Yes, to secretary@. Do you need a template?
Thanks Sheng
Mike
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sheng Zha wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for offering help. I can represent the code donors and file the
> software grant. Should the filing go to secretary@?
>
> Sheng
>
> > On Jul 5, 2020, at
Hi Michael,
Thanks for offering help. I can represent the code donors and file the software
grant. Should the filing go to secretary@?
Sheng
> On Jul 5, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Michael Wall wrote:
>
> Is this being tracked in a ticket anywhere? What help can I offer?
>
> Mike
>
>> On Fri, Jun
Is this being tracked in a ticket anywhere? What help can I offer?
Mike
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:44 PM Marco de Abreu wrote:
>
> Hi Sheng,
>
> since this is a "large one off code contribution", the policy [1] states
> that they should be brought in through a software grant.
>
> Best regards,
Hi Sheng,
since this is a "large one off code contribution", the policy [1] states
that they should be brought in through a software grant.
Best regards,
Marco
[1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/legal.html
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:41 PM Sheng Zha wrote:
> To mentors,
>
>
To mentors,
Do we the PPMC need to fill out IP clearance for this code donation?
-sz
On 2019/04/24 21:19:49, Sheng Zha wrote:
> The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I will
> start the migration and build logic changes soon.
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/04/07 21:47:39,
Hi Sheng.
Do you need some help with this? Do we plan to have this for 1.5?
Pedro.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:26 PM Pedro Larroy
wrote:
>
> Thanks. Great to read.
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:19 PM Sheng Zha wrote:
> >
> > The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I
Thanks. Great to read.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:19 PM Sheng Zha wrote:
>
> The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I will
> start the migration and build logic changes soon.
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha wrote:
> > I agree it would make development
The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I will start
the migration and build logic changes soon.
-sz
On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha wrote:
> I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet code
> base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I
tor parts of legacy code.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhash...@apache.org]
> > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM
> > To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
> >
> > mshadow depends
.@mxnet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
> >
> > mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inherent in
> > mshadow code base that requires OpenBLAS over MKL. The linked issue
> > #11769 seems to be more of
code.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhash...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM
> To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
>
> mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inher
mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inherent in mshadow
code base that requires OpenBLAS over MKL. The linked issue #11769 seems to be
more of a build logic issue.
-sz
On 2019/04/07 18:56:43, Aaron Markham wrote:
> +1
> Reduced complexity. Choice of math library...
I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet code base,
since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the mshadow code to
mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
[1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
-sz
On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen
"Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in
sense of performance, portability, or anything else?"
It would improve the contributor experience in that if we find a bug which
requires fixes in both repos, we won't have to coordinate 2 PRs. It would
also make
+1
Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just
install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS. This
could make Windows setup easier.
Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao wrote:
> Does merging mshadow into
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
Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
without any additional gains.
Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
mxnet codebase.
To respect the original mshadow
Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
> about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
>
> As a more long term solution using
Hi Pedro,
mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
39 matches
Mail list logo
