Hi Tianqi and Junru.
MXNet as a piece of software is in its teens and needs to mature. The
community needs to have a honest discussion, and decide if MXNet is a
production or a research framework.
If it's a production framework, we need to apply the YAGNI principle
and decide what is and what is
Hi Zach,
Thank you for raising these points! I am happy to offer more reading
materials about this topic.
*SSA vs ANF.* ANF and SSA are essentially the same thing [1].
*AD in Relay.* Relay is able to do AD through not only control flow, but
also various data structures and higher-order functjon
This is a good point. I believe the main question here is not SSA vs
others, but more about CFG vs structured control flow.
SSA is generally equivalent to ANF or dataflow if you ignore the Phi and
CFG blocks. The current relay IR makes use of more structured
control flow so it does not have an exp
Hi
Thanks for all the materials and keypoints raised. The discussion has
many ramifications, I will think about them and research them very
carefully before replying further. Please also don't quickly dismiss
the points I have raised and reduce them to typed vs untyped or
pedantic C++ comments, we
Hi Anirudh, Naveen,
Thank you so much for the gentle remainder!
I am not a native speaker and have resulted in the mistake. I would love to
say sincere sorry to Pedro. Pedro is working really hard for growing our
community and improving our code base. I sincerely apologize for what I
have said in
I would like to raise another option to get back on the topic of changing
the Operator graph structure. On the page discussing Relay IR [1], it
discusses mainly the difference between a data flow graph like we use now
and A-normal [2] which is used in some functional compilers. Is there a
reason we
Being dismissive and condescending has been exactly what is plaguing this
project.
I agree the last paragraph sounds very condescending and very dismissive
and it breaks many code of conducts listed.
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:31 AM Anirudh Subramanian
wrote:
> Hi Junru,
>
> Overall, I apprecia
Hi Junru,
Overall, I appreciate the points you made about the proposal.
Having said that, I would like to remind the Apache Code of Conduct :
https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.
"Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly and patient".
I find your tone condescending. Clearly you understa
Hi Pedro,
I really appreciate that a diligent and talented engineer eagerly wants to
improve our system, and am very thankful that you have done so much for our
community. However, I do want to mention some points that I believe I
should mention.
While I agree with Tianqi that every design has it
The core part of the proposal is to move the graph to be much more strongly
typed template class.
I think this is mainly a point of engineering taste, and both sides have
pros and cons, let me list them before I share my thoughts on this issue:
- Typed fields certainly enjoy more compile-time type
Hi Tianqi
I thought a bit more about your comments and I think there is a simple
way to address your concerns that satisfies both needs.
We can have a NodeAttributes template class which has a map of string
to any as it's currenlty the case, so the graph can be used in the
highly dynamic scenario
Hi Tianqi
Thanks for the quick response.
Could you point to examples where graph.h is being exposed which would
not be possible with what I propose? I don't think my proposal is
having any impact in language bindings, and the way I describe it
doesn't affect having or not having higher language b
Thanks for the proposal. Let me share some of my thoughts:
Specific comments on the proposal
---
The heavy use of generic in the Graph type was a huge departure from
type-erased data structure which was presented in the previous design.
While we understa
Hi Sheng
Could you provide relevant links to Relay and what you would
recommend to read so we have a focused discussion instead of me
potentially me miss-searching? Probably I also missed the discussion
or vote in the mail list regarding including TVM as a depedency or
future plans on using Relay
Hi Pedro,
Thanks for taking the inititaive. Skimming through the design doc, I didn't see
comparison with existing solutions such as relay in tvm, which is already a
dependency of mxnet already. Could you elaborate on comparison with existing
solutions in the design doc too?
-sz
On 2019/05/14
Hi dev@
As a result of my deep dives on the graph machinery I have created a
new proposal to improve the operator graph in MXNet.
This would mean superseding the use of NNVM Graph in MXNet and having
a new implementation that we can use to simplify a lot of code and do
powerful graph manipulation
16 matches
Mail list logo
