Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.0.1

+1 and suggest consolidating all maintenance releases under the same major.minor version into a single branch On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Meghna Baijal wrote: > I agree. If the release candidate is being cut from the master branch, it > should be considered a

Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.0.1

I agree. If the release candidate is being cut from the master branch, it should be considered a minor release. Anyway the effort involved in the release process is exactly the same in either case. Thanks, Meghna On Jan 24, 2018 8:56 PM, "Marco de Abreu" wrote: >

Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.0.1

Are there any particular reasons why we are classifying this release as patch instead of minor release? As far as I know, we don't have any tests in place to determine API changes and thus can't guarantee that this is an actual patch release. Considering the fact that PRs have been merged without

Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.0.1

the profiling PR contains a small breaking change, but i don’t think it’s going into 1.0.1 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:48 PM Haibin Lin wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Since the plan was to cut a branch from the master branch, the code will > include changes other than the bug

Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.0.1

Hi everyone, Since the plan was to cut a branch from the master branch, the code will include changes other than the bug fix PRs noted in the release note. Is anyone aware of any API changes in the current MXNet master branch? In particular, are there backward incompatible ones? Best, Haibin On

test_operator_gpu.test_correlation fails on Python 3 MKLML GPU

Hello, we just had a test failure in test_operator_gpu.test_correlation (sourced from unittest/test_operator.py) on the master branch (tracked at https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/9553). Could somebody please have a look? Best regards, Marco

Re: Please Help Fix MXNet Licensing Issues for the next Release!

Marco, Thanks a lot for looking through this ! Some comments below - 1. *R-package:* Before we create the final tarball for the release, the R-package is explicitly removed from the cloned MXNet repo. The only info I have in this regard is that “there are some unresolved licensing issues

Re: Please Help Fix MXNet Licensing Issues for the next Release!

Hi Meghna, thank you for driving the licensing issues! - R-package: In the linked wiki, you're mentioning that R-package is not a part of the release. Could you please elaborate? From my understand, all files in the GitHub repository are part of the release. - Dockerfiles: I just checked another

Re: Please Help Fix MXNet Licensing Issues for the next Release!

Hello, This is an update on the current status of the license fixes (all details in the wiki linked below)– 1. I am constantly updating this wiki, so you can check it at any time to know the status - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses 2. All 7 PRs

cuda CUDNN auto tune, optimal parameters of cuda kernels

Hi We have identified that cuda cudnn autotune produces a significant spike of ram usage when finding the best convolution algorithm. As far as we understand this is inside the cudnn library. But in platforms like the TX1 where we only have 4G this is problematic as the spike is close to 4G.