Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] New Branches for MXNet 1.x, 1.7.x, and 2.x (#17701)

[Leonard Lausen]

Even for 1.x, the current instructions are not compatible with stable 1.6 
release. We should build the website based on 1.6 release branch until a 
version selection is available.

-- 
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17701#issuecomment-593654044

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] New Branches for MXNet 1.x, 1.7.x, and 2.x (#17701)

[Sheng Zha]

Let's switch the doc generation for the website to 1.x for now. 2.0 doc should 
be generated when version selection of the website is available.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17701#issuecomment-593653255

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] New Branches for MXNet 1.x, 1.7.x, and 2.x (#17701)

[Aaron Markham]

Docs are currently generated from master. What's the proposal for what should 
be the default version of the docs on the website?
Do we need to escalate the production of docs variations for different versions 
- like at a minimum, master(2.0) and 1.x?

-- 
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17701#issuecomment-593652733

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] New Branches for MXNet 1.x, 1.7.x, and 2.x (#17701)

[Sheng Zha]

Pinging @apache/mxnet-committers again in case there's any more concern. 
Otherwise I will assume lazy consensus by the end of Wednesday of this week.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17701#issuecomment-593638561

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 API Deprecation (#17676)

[Sheng Zha]

TensorRT support is currently using ONNX to convert from NNVM: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/746cbc55fd666bb4529e88d247fed8e0907270f9/src/operator/subgraph/tensorrt/tensorrt.cc#L313-L318

Although I would like to see TensorRT support moved away from ONNX with a 
native integration using the Accelerator API compile support: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/17623. But the migration from 
ONNX to AccAPI is still in discussion and the compile support PR is not merged 
yet (shameless plug: please review! :-D)

Sam

On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:06 PM, JackieWu 
mailto:notificati...@github.com>> wrote:

I think we should keep ONNX APIs, since it is able to export many basic models, 
although it is not perfect. Users will train their models in MXNet 2.0, and 
export ONNX model,  then use the ONNX model in their deployment frameworks. 
(http://onnx.ai/supported-tools).

It is useful to attract users to use MXNet 2.0 to train their models with ONNX.

--
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17676#issuecomment-592878029



-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17676#issuecomment-593574187

Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] MXNet 2.0 API Deprecation (#17676)

[Skalicky, Sam]

TensorRT support is currently using ONNX to convert from NNVM: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/746cbc55fd666bb4529e88d247fed8e0907270f9/src/operator/subgraph/tensorrt/tensorrt.cc#L313-L318

Although I would like to see TensorRT support moved away from ONNX with a 
native integration using the Accelerator API compile support: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/17623. But the migration from 
ONNX to AccAPI is still in discussion and the compile support PR is not merged 
yet (shameless plug: please review! :-D)

Sam

On Feb 28, 2020, at 9:06 PM, JackieWu 
mailto:notificati...@github.com>> wrote:

I think we should keep ONNX APIs, since it is able to export many basic models, 
although it is not perfect. Users will train their models in MXNet 2.0, and 
export ONNX model,  then use the ONNX model in their deployment frameworks. 
(http://onnx.ai/supported-tools).

It is useful to attract users to use MXNet 2.0 to train their models with ONNX.

--
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17676#issuecomment-592878029