Re: Reverting pull request

Hey all, Although I am not a committer, and also have not contributed to MXNet as much as I would have wanted, wanted to chime in. Based on my experience doing SW dev for quite some time, I think that holding a high bar for the code that gets merged is a very positive thing - including making

Re: Refactoring MXNet scala code to use "org.apache.mxnet"

Suneel, I tend to think for this issue, GitHub issue is good enough and we do not need JIRA. Can you clarify what is the advantage you see in using JIRA over GitHub issue for this specific case? Thanks! Hagay On 1/4/18, 16:34, "Suneel Marthi" wrote: Jira has been

Re: [RFQ] Deprecate amalgamation

JavaScript is not the only use case for Amalgamation - I’m familiar with a few users that use the amalgamation to build Android and iOS apps. If we take out Amalgamation, unless we provide target builds for these platforms, these users and use cases will be left out. Hagay On 11/21/17, 11:50,

Re: AWS contributing ONNX-MXNet

ew updates, but unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to have a look at the updated version before the announcement. Otherwise, I should leave a comment to put individual contributors names on it. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Lupesko, Hagay <lupe...@gmail.com> wrote:

AWS contributing ONNX-MXNet

Hey folks, Today AWS announced contributing ONNX-MXNet, an open source Python package that imports ONNX models into MXNet. @roshrini and I (@lupesko) have worked on the code, which is now publicly available [1], and published a blog post demonstrating usage of the package [2]. Special

Re: mxnet ndarray inference in js

TongKe, What’s the use case you are after? Answering this question may help us help you ( Hagay On 11/2/17, 12:10, "TongKe Xue" wrote: Hi, I'm looking for a js library compatible with mxnet/ndarray. 1. I am aware of https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet.js/

Re: The Exchange Layer Support of MXNet

Tianqi, “I would want the code to be in the repo as long as we reach the consensus.” +1 “The reason why I am seeing this decision so seriously is that it will affect how we can influence the design of the exchange format we act on” IMO, the most important first thing to do in order to influence

Re: Request for suggestions- Supporting onnx in mxnet

mxnet/gluon(nnvm) does not prevent that from happening. Thanks for the discussions and to move forward with a decision. We can call for a vote on among the current committers on this issue. Tianqi On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Lupesko, Hagay <lupe.

Re: Request for suggestions- Supporting onnx in mxnet

x = nnvm_to_onnx(nnvm_graph, params) >return onnx > > This allows nnvm_from_mxnet to be reused for other purposes, like > compiling API to deployable modules > > Tianqi > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Lupesko, Hagay <lupe...@gmail.com&

Re: Request for suggestions- Supporting onnx in mxnet

Roshani – this is an exciting initiative, ONNX support on MXNet will enable more users to ramp up on MXNet, which is great. Tianqi – a few questions and thoughts about your note: - “More hardware backends to mxnet” – MXNet users get the same benefit of HW support implementing ONNX import on top

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

WA < >> > > > > > > > > > ozawa.tsuyo...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > &

Re: New Apache MXNet logo idea

Like it! It’s cute, fun and playful. For me it also associates with speed. Hagay On 9/28/17, 20:08, "Henri Yandell" wrote: Love :) Lots of good connections here. Nice feather style/colour in the bunny's silhouette, nice "magic" overlay for connection to

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

ecks are failing. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Lupesko, Hagay <lupe...@gmail.com> wrote: > @madan – re: getting to a stable CI first: > I’m concerned that by not enabling protected branch mode ASAP, we’re just > taking in more regressions, which makes

Re: Apache MXNet build failures are mostly valid - verify before merge

@madan – re: getting to a stable CI first: I’m concerned that by not enabling protected branch mode ASAP, we’re just taking in more regressions, which makes a stable build a moving target for us… On 8/31/17, 10:49, "Zha, Sheng" wrote: Just one thing: please don’t