Re: Podling Report Reminder - May 2019
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/May2019 On 2019/04/25 05:17:01, Sheng Zha wrote: > Dear community, > > I drafted our report and posted it in incubator wiki [1] just now. Feel free > to provide feedback by 2019-04-28 (Sunday). Thank you for your attention. > > Best regards, > Sheng Zha > > On 2019/04/25 01:32:01, jmcl...@apache.org wrote: > > Dear podling, > > > > This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache > > Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to > > prepare your quarterly board report. > > > > The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 15 May 2019, 10:30 am PDT. > > The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC > > report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks > > before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and > > submission (Wed, May 01). > > > > Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator > > PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the > > very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board > > meeting. > > > > Candidate names should not be made public before people are actually > > elected, so please do not include the names of potential committers or > > PPMC members in your report. > > > > Thanks, > > > > The Apache Incubator PMC > > > > Submitting your Report > > > > -- > > > > Your report should contain the following: > > > > * Your project name > > * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of > > the project or necessarily of its field > > * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move > > towards graduation. > > * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be > > aware of > > * How has the community developed since the last report > > * How has the project developed since the last report. > > * How does the podling rate their own maturity. > > > > This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/INCUBATOR/May2019 > > > > Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before > > this page is created from a template. > > > > Mentors > > --- > > > > Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on > > the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are > > following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms > > for the Incubator PMC. > > > > Incubator PMC > > >
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
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 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 wrote: > > > 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 community. I would recommend starting a > > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the > > > migrating process. > > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code > > > base to preserve the contribution history. > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 libraries like eigen to perform > > > > > linear > > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think > > > > > xtensor( > > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here. > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy < > > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome > > > > > > as > > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of > > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers > > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the > > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go > > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
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 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 wrote: > > 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 community. I would recommend starting a > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the > > migrating process. > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code > > base to preserve the contribution history. > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque > > wrote: > > > > > 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 libraries like eigen to perform > > > > linear > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor( > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here. > > > > > > > > - > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy < > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo. > > > > > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow. > > > > > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend. > > > > > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
