Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-24 Thread Pedro Larroy
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

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-24 Thread Sheng Zha
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

Re: Interested in MXNet Development

2019-04-22 Thread Sheng Zha
Hi Damien, Welcome to MXNet. I just sent invite for apache slack. Feel free to ask here if you have development related questions. Many people here are more than happy to help you get started. -sz On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:48 AM Damien Stanton wrote: > Apologies - this request was

Re: Interested in MXNet Development

2019-04-22 Thread Damien Stanton
Apologies - this request was specifically for the MXNet Slack invite (message sent before I was completed). On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:40 PM Damien Stanton wrote: > Specifically, I am interested in MXNet's applicability in the Kotlin, > Rust, and Clojure spaces. > > Thanks! > Damien >

Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Wang Jiajun

2019-04-16 Thread kellen sunderland
Welcome! Very impressed with the work fixing memory leaks so far. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 9:14 AM Carin Meier wrote: > Congrats! > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:58 AM Anirudh Subramanian < > anirudh2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Please join me to welcome Wang Jiajun

Re: [QUESTION] mxnet/Tuple vs nnvm/Tuple

2019-04-16 Thread Lin Yuan
Jun, Thanks! I was also leaning towards your suggestion. I have updated nnvm::Tuple to mxnet::Tuple for a few remaining places in MXNet. Best, Lin On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:35 AM Jun Wu wrote: > include/mxnet/tuple.h was first copied from nnvm in this PR >

Re: [QUESTION] mxnet/Tuple vs nnvm/Tuple

2019-04-16 Thread Jun Wu
include/mxnet/tuple.h was first copied from nnvm in this PR so that we can make changes on it to support zero-dim and zero-size tensors without affecting TVM project. That PR has changed most of the places where nnvm::Tuple and nnvm::TShape

Re: Changes to MPI-operator

2019-04-16 Thread Roshani Nagmote
Sounds good. We(Pinar, Vandana and me) are currently prototyping and we are planning to start a discussion on dev list once we have some logical conclusion. We will share more details soon and seek feedback from the community. Thanks, Roshani On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:30 PM Yuan Tang wrote: >

Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Wang Jiajun

2019-04-16 Thread Carin Meier
Congrats! On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:58 AM Anirudh Subramanian wrote: > Hi, > > Please join me to welcome Wang Jiajun (https://github.com/arcadiaphy) as a > new committer of Apache (incubating) MXNet! > > Wang has been solving some tough bugs with respect to memory leaks, process > fork

Re: Changes to MPI-operator

2019-04-15 Thread Yuan Tang
I am cc’ing MXNet dev mailing list here. Thanks for the note Roshani. Look forward to seeing your contribution! Though let’s also discuss this in MXNet dev mailing list since other people (e.g. Carl and Lin) might be working on this as well to avoid duplicate work. Best, Yuan On Mon, Apr 15,

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-12 Thread Tianqi Chen
+1. While I like slack, personally, I don't think we should treat slack as public-archive. "everything that happens (also) happens in dev@" Tianqi On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:19 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > I'd prefer if we keep discussions on the dev-list instead of slack - feel > free to

Re: Benchmarking MXNet with different compilers and different OpenMP implementations (results)

2019-04-12 Thread Pedro Larroy
Are there any updates on this? This is still affecting multiprocessing, some tests hang: rces. For information on submitting this issue, please see https://bugs.llvm.org/. [INFO] Setting test np/mx/python random seeds, use MXNET_TEST_SEED=2124604270 to reproduce. Assertion failure at

Re: duplicated nnvm code

2019-04-12 Thread Pedro Larroy
I would think that if we are using nnvm from tvm we should not have duplicated code in our repository. I think we either use the subrepository as a 3rdparty or assimilate the code in the codebase as what is planned with mshadow. But I guess TVM is making heavy use of nnvm, and this case might make

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-11 Thread Marco de Abreu
I'd prefer if we keep discussions on the dev-list instead of slack - feel free to open another thread. -Marco Pedro Larroy schrieb am Fr., 12. Apr. 2019, 02:24: > I will respond in slack, so we don't derail the original thread's > topic with my points. > > Looking forward to your proposal. > >

Re: duplicated nnvm code

2019-04-11 Thread Junru Shao
We should remove 3rdparty/tvm/nnvm/gradient.cc.o imo On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:44 PM Pedro Larroy wrote: > Hi > > I found that src/nnvm and 3rdparty/tvm/nnvm/src/pass/ has duplicated > code that we are linking in: > > ./CMakeFiles/mxnet_static.dir/3rdparty/tvm/nnvm/src/pass/gradient.cc.o >

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-11 Thread Pedro Larroy
I will respond in slack, so we don't derail the original thread's topic with my points. Looking forward to your proposal. On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 1:00 PM Junru Shao wrote: > > I don't have idea about the following issues: > > 1) Reducing the abuse of inlined code moving more logic to

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Jun Wu
Thank all for the discussion. To make this PR unblocked by the discussion of semver concerns, I made copies of the APIs I need to change and worked on those copies. Thanks to Tong, Yizhi, and Sergey who updated all the language bindings to use the new C APIs supporting zero-dim/size tensors, this

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-11 Thread Junru Shao
I don't have idea about the following issues: 1) Reducing the abuse of inlined code moving more logic to implementation files and improve scoping which will also speed up compilation 2) Reduce runtime of some unit tests 3) Improve MXNet startup time Will be super interested to hear about your

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-11 Thread Junru Shao
We have a systematic solution to go without ABI headache. I am struggling with some errants, and will share our proposal here as soon as I could. This will be very interesting topic to discuss. Let's work hard together and make it perfect :-) On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:43 PM Pedro Larroy wrote:

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-11 Thread Pedro Larroy
Thanks Marco for raising this issue. I think we can certainly do some improvements in modularization and build. At the same time Tianqi's point of view is important to consider and on point. I see a high risk of overengineering in such endeavor. I also see increased complexity, difficulty

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Anirudh Subramanian
Hi Marco, The backend private APIs in engine, executor, storage, ndarray etc. can still be changed. I understand that it may introduce code duplication, but introducing duplicate C APIs can still be better than the backend developer having to worry about different frontends. Not to mention a

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Marco de Abreu
Good point about the adoption speed for the different frontends, Anirudh. While this is a quite valid argument, I'm afraid of the complexity it might introduce as well as a risk of further diverging frontend functionality. I'd rather propose that we introduce a guideline to follow when changes to

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Marco de Abreu
My personal opinion towards that discussion is that we should keep the C-API free from semantic versioning because otherwise we're introducing two "fronts" that we have to maintain backwards compatibility for. By the way, currently, we have no way to verify and guarantee the compatibility of the

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Anirudh Subramanian
Hi Jun, Till now from what I have observed this has been an undocumented guideline to not break C APIs (example: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11429#discussion_r199564999). Although the C APIs are supposed to serve only as bridges for frontend language bindings (exception being C

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Marco de Abreu
Hi Jun, we've had a previous discussion on this topic here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f0d7d96f9737479ec57580a977e9169544ffa1bc1a8ae21ab18fc6a0@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E Best regards, Marco On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 7:58 PM Jun Wu wrote: > I'm not sure about whether C APIs should

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Jun Wu
I'm not sure about whether C APIs should fall under semver. This is the discussion we would like to have with the community. My thinking on this: 1. In most of the cases, C APIs only serve as bridges between frontend language bindings and C++ backend. Most of users/developers do not interact

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Anirudh Subramanian
I was under the impression that C API does fall under semver. Has this been discussed somewhere before ? Is this also the case for C Predict API ? On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 8:08 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > In case only changes to the c-api are being made, it doesn't fall under our > semantic

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Marco de Abreu
In case only changes to the c-api are being made, it doesn't fall under our semantic versioning since that's not a user facing API and thus I'd be in favour as doing it as part of a minor release. If there is any behavioural change from a user perspective (a good indicator would be if tests have

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Aaron Markham
Just curious about when this kind of change will land. Would it wait for 2.0 or would it be in 1.5 or another minor release? On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 00:15 Junru Shao wrote: > Really nice improvement over MXNet's usability! I suggest that we could > make numpy-compatible behavior default in 2.0. >

Re: MXNet Berlin User Group

2019-04-11 Thread Per da Silva
In addition to talks, we could also consider some mob programming sessions? Maybe use the time to (as a small group) tackle some of the open issues? Maybe this also helps new member to get up to speed with the code and tooling, etc. as well as develop the community by solving problems together =)

Re: MXNet Berlin User Group

2019-04-11 Thread Jose Luis Contreras Santos
We didn't have any attendees this time either. As Chance says, I believe we need to rethink these users groups, we very rarely have any users as they stand right now. The idea of having talks from contributors sounds like an interesting one to me. Jose El jue., 11 abr. 2019 a las 10:14, Chance

Re: MXNet Berlin User Group

2019-04-11 Thread Chance Bair
I think it would drive attendance if we had a quick talk each week from an interested contributor. We could start a sign up list for topics and issues. Chance Bair On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 9:29 AM Isabel Drost-Fromm wrote: > > > Am 9. April 2019 17:56:21 MESZ schrieb Jose Luis Contreras

Re: MXNet Berlin User Group

2019-04-11 Thread Isabel Drost-Fromm
Am 9. April 2019 17:56:21 MESZ schrieb Jose Luis Contreras Santos : >This is a friendly reminder that the MXNet Berlin User Group will be >held >today, starting in a few minutes at 6pm-7pm (CEST) / 9am-10am (PST). Would you mind providing a brief summary of the user group here? How many ppl

Re: Implementing zero-dim and zero-size tensors in MXNet and its impact on your codebases

2019-04-11 Thread Junru Shao
Really nice improvement over MXNet's usability! I suggest that we could make numpy-compatible behavior default in 2.0. On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Jun Wu wrote: > Dear Community, > > A while ago, we sent out an RFC > discussing the >

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-10 Thread Sheng Zha
ednesday, April 10, 2019 1:34 PM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and > memory planning pass > > Agreed with Tianqi that we could have better implementation once we have > better tvm nnvm v2 i

RE: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-10 Thread Lv, Tao A
to do some experiments on the existing architects and NNVM IR. -tao -Original Message- From: Junru Shao [mailto:junrushao1...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1:34 PM To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType

Re: CUDNN 7.5 Issues

2019-04-09 Thread Per da Silva
Hey Kellen, I really appreciate that. Thank you! And thanks to the community for supporting me ^^ Per On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:53 AM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Per, just wanted to drop a line and say thanks for supporting the > community on this one. > >

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-09 Thread Junru Shao
t` backend on CPU. And I totally > > agree with you that we need think more about the software architecture > for > > maintainability, testability and readability - that's why I sent out this > > proposal to get more ideas from the community. > > > > > > -tao > &g

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-09 Thread Tianqi Chen
maintainability, testability and readability - that's why I sent out this > proposal to get more ideas from the community. > > > -tao > > -Original Message- > From: Skalicky, Sam [mailto:sska...@amazon.com.INVALID] > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 2:24 AM &g

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-09 Thread Junru Shao
, April 10, 2019 11:03 AM > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > > Subject: RE: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType > and > > memory planning pass > > > > > > Thank you Tianqi and Sam for the kind suggestions. > > > >

Re: CUDNN 7.5 Issues

2019-04-09 Thread kellen sunderland
Hey Per, just wanted to drop a line and say thanks for supporting the community on this one. On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:20 AM Per da Silva wrote: > I've created an issue to track this problem: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/14652 > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 9:07 AM Per da Silva

RE: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-09 Thread Zhao, Patric
BTW, "maintainability, testability and readability" is always our design goal from starting point of MKL-DNN integration :) > -Original Message- > From: Lv, Tao A [mailto:tao.a...@intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 11:03 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.ap

RE: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-09 Thread Lv, Tao A
@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass I agree with Tianqi. We should let MKLDNN partitipate in memory planning by first having a separate NNVM pass and then using that info in the regular memory planning phase. Its

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-09 Thread Skalicky, Sam
I agree with Tianqi. We should let MKLDNN partitipate in memory planning by first having a separate NNVM pass and then using that info in the regular memory planning phase. Its starting to sound like MKLDNN should be treated like an accelerator rather than an operator library. As it has

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Refine the InferStorageType and memory planning pass

2019-04-09 Thread Tianqi Chen
The layout transformation should really be a separate optimization pass rather than memory planning. As is done in the TVM stack. If we want to do a clean slate solution, I would recommend looking into that instead. TIanqi On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:46 AM Lv, Tao A wrote: > > > Hi dev, > > > >

Re: CUDNN 7.5 Issues

2019-04-09 Thread Per da Silva
I've created an issue to track this problem: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/14652 On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 9:07 AM Per da Silva wrote: > Dear MXNet community, > > I've been trying to update the CI GPU images to CUDA 10, but the tests are > failing. I'm not sure why and would

Re: MXNet 1.4.1 Release Proposal

2019-04-08 Thread Junru Shao
Thanks for the great opportunity! Let's wait for some time for fixes and proposals and decide the timeline then. On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 1:02 PM Hagay Lupesko wrote: > Awesome - thanks Junru and Sheng! > I have updated the CWiki to reflect you being the release manager and > shepherd. > > Junru

Re: Fujitsu Breaks ImageNet Record using MXNet (under 75 sec)

2019-04-08 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Agreed! I will mention this to my colleagues at Amazon that can help with that. On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 1:32 PM Chaitanya Bapat wrote: > Yes. Moreover, we should be pushing it on our Twitter, Reddit, Medium, etc > social channels. > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 15:55, Hagay Lupesko wrote: > > >

Re: Fujitsu Breaks ImageNet Record using MXNet (under 75 sec)

2019-04-08 Thread Chaitanya Bapat
Yes. Moreover, we should be pushing it on our Twitter, Reddit, Medium, etc social channels. On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 15:55, Hagay Lupesko wrote: > That's super cool Chai - thanks for sharing! > I also noticed that, and was seeing how we can reach out to the Fujitsu > guys so they can contribute

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-08 Thread Junru Shao
+1 Thanks Marco for sharing this! It is great to see people agree with this feature and we actually have been planning for this for a while. We would love to share this plan as soon as possible. On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:42 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > Just to clarify. I am not questioning the

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-08 Thread Pedro Larroy
tor parts of legacy code. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhash...@apache.org] > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM > > To: d...@mxnet.apache.org > > Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase > > > > mshadow depends

Re: MXNet 1.4.1 Release Proposal

2019-04-08 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Awesome - thanks Junru and Sheng! I have updated the CWiki to reflect you being the release manager and shepherd. Junru - I suggest we give the community a week more to add critical fix proposals, before we set a timeline. Please feel free to drive this forward, and I'm happy to help as needed.

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-08 Thread Junru Shao
radeoff between them. > If we can move mshadow into MXNet, it will be more flexible to redesign > and refactor parts of legacy code. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhash...@apache.org] > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM > > To: d..

Re: Fujitsu Breaks ImageNet Record using MXNet (under 75 sec)

2019-04-08 Thread Hagay Lupesko
That's super cool Chai - thanks for sharing! I also noticed that, and was seeing how we can reach out to the Fujitsu guys so they can contribute back into MXNet... On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lin Yuan wrote: > Chai, > > Thanks for sharing. This is awesome news! > > Lin > > On Mon, Apr 8,

Re: Fujitsu Breaks ImageNet Record using MXNet (under 75 sec)

2019-04-08 Thread Lin Yuan
Chai, Thanks for sharing. This is awesome news! Lin On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:48 AM Chaitanya Bapat wrote: > Greetings! > > Great start to a Monday morning, as I came across this news on Import AI, > an AI newsletter. > > The newsletter talked about Apache MXNet, hence thought of sharing it

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-08 Thread Tianqi Chen
Just to clarify. I am not questioning the usefulness of the separation. Just want to highlight the technical challenges here based on our past experiences. Crossing DLL boundaries in C++ can create quite a lot of problems, especially some of the dependencies used a different version of the

RE: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-07 Thread Zhao, Patric
code. > -Original Message- > From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhash...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM > To: d...@mxnet.apache.org > Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase > > mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inher

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-07 Thread kellen sunderland
I think we can make some incremental progress. My thoughts were along the lines of plugins (thinking about what happens with the VLC project). At process launch time we could gather some information about our execution environment (either through configuration, or by convention looking at our

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-07 Thread Sheng Zha
mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inherent in mshadow code base that requires OpenBLAS over MKL. The linked issue #11769 seems to be more of a build logic issue. -sz On 2019/04/07 18:56:43, Aaron Markham wrote: > +1 > Reduced complexity. Choice of math library...

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-07 Thread Sheng Zha
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

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-07 Thread Tianqi Chen
While I personally like the idea. This can be something that is fairly technical challenging and I would caution against this idea vs pushing for good features and just allow runtime configuration. The main problem here is due to the C++ ABI. There is no standard c++ ABI across compilers, which

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Backend choices during runtime

2019-04-07 Thread kellen sunderland
Strongly support the idea of runtime loadable components in MXNet. There's no reason (other than perhaps engineering effort) we can't have a single compilation of MXNet that finds dependencies and chooses execution paths intelligently (or based on configuration) at runtime. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-07 Thread kellen sunderland
"Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in sense of performance, portability, or anything else?" It would improve the contributor experience in that if we find a bug which requires fixes in both repos, we won't have to coordinate 2 PRs. It would also make

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-07 Thread Aaron Markham
+1 Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS. This could make Windows setup easier. Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769. On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao wrote: > Does merging mshadow into

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-07 Thread Junru Shao
Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in sense of performance, portability, or anything else? On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries ( > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-05 Thread Tianqi Chen
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

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-05 Thread Alfredo Luque
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

Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase

2019-04-05 Thread Anirudh Acharya
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(

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system

2019-04-05 Thread Junru Shao
I agree with Tianqi and Marco. Probably what should happen is to let cmake be the default in some minor release, and completely deprecate makefiles in 2.0. On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:23 AM Marco de Abreu wrote: > I think this is rather about the depreciation of the make based build > system. We

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system

2019-04-05 Thread Marco de Abreu
I think this is rather about the depreciation of the make based build system. We currently have make and cmake in parallel but with diverging feature support. -Marco Tianqi Chen schrieb am Fr., 5. Apr. 2019, 11:42: > I am in favor of using CMake. And I personally think CMake is not something >

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system

2019-04-05 Thread Tianqi Chen
I am in favor of using CMake. And I personally think CMake is not something that has to be introduced in a 2.0. It can simply be part of a minor release. Tianqi On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:31 AM Kellen Sunderland wrote: > Hello MXNet devs, > > I'd like to start a thread discussing what our build

RE: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system

2019-04-05 Thread Zhao, Patric
+1 single build system. > -Original Message- > From: Qing Lan [mailto:lanking...@live.com] > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 5:27 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system > > +1 to have a single build

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system

2019-04-04 Thread Qing Lan
performance. Thanks, Qing From: Marco de Abreu Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 15:01 To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system +1 towards having a single build system I'd like to add the benefit of this approach

Re: MXNet 1.4.1 Release Proposal

2019-04-04 Thread Sheng Zha
Thanks Hagay for proposing the release and for Junru to volunteer to drive the release. I will help Junru as the committer for this release. -sz On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:18 PM Junru Shao wrote: > Hi Hagay, > > I have some experiences in MXNet development, and would love to volunteer > for

Re: MXNet 1.4.1 Release Proposal

2019-04-04 Thread Junru Shao
Hi Hagay, I have some experiences in MXNet development, and would love to volunteer for driving this release. Thank you so much! Best, Junru On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:51 PM Hagay Lupesko wrote: > Hello MXNet community, > > As previously discussed in [0 > < >

Re: Discussing plans for next MXNet releases

2019-04-04 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Thanks Kellen, Pedro and Sheng for the feedback. Kellen - - Thanks for proposing 1.5 features. Kindly note them on the issue Sheng created: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/14619 - For your 2.0 proposals - can you please update them in the issue Sheng created:

Re: [MXNET 2.0 Wishlist] [DISCUSS] Single build system

2019-04-04 Thread Marco de Abreu
+1 towards having a single build system I'd like to add the benefit of this approach allowing us to have the same build logic across all operating systems. It would be great if we could make x86/Unix, x86/windows, x86/mac and ARM/Unix first class citizens from the beginning. -Marco Kellen

Re: Requesting slack access

2019-04-04 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Hi Xiuquan, Slack invite sent - welcome to the MXNet community! Please slack me @Hagay Lupesko - would love to chat about how you guys are thinking about using MXNet. Hagay On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:24 AM Xiuquan Lv wrote: > Dear MXNet community, > > > > > Please join me in the MXNet Slack

Re: Reminder: MXNet Berlin User Group

2019-04-04 Thread Chance Bair
Correct, this is a pattern. As I am a relatively new joiner to MXNet, it might be good to elaborate on what users would want out of a remote user group. I would love to hear suggestions! Chance Bair On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:48 PM Isabel Drost-Fromm wrote: > > > Am 4. April 2019 13:29:28

Re: Reminder: MXNet Berlin User Group

2019-04-04 Thread Isabel Drost-Fromm
Am 4. April 2019 13:29:28 MESZ schrieb Chance Bair : >Again, there were no attendees. Is that a pattern, or was that just the case for the past two events? If the former, maybe we could brainstorm here what could be done to make the offer more attractive? Isabel -- This message was sent

Re: Reminder: MXNet Berlin User Group

2019-04-04 Thread Chance Bair
Again, there were no attendees. Chance Bair On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:07 PM Isabel Drost-Fromm wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 01:50:40PM +0200, Chance Bair wrote: > > This is a friendly reminder that MXNet Berlin User Group will be held > today > > at 6pm-7pm (CEST) / 9am-10am (PST). More

Re: Reminder: MXNet Berlin User Group

2019-04-04 Thread Isabel Drost-Fromm
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 01:50:40PM +0200, Chance Bair wrote: > This is a friendly reminder that MXNet Berlin User Group will be held today > at 6pm-7pm (CEST) / 9am-10am (PST). More info here: >

Re: Podling Report Reminder - April 2019

2019-04-03 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Sounds good Sheng, thanks! On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 17:26 Sheng Zha wrote: > Thanks for the reminder. I’m working on it and will post the draft back to > the list, and would appreciate feedback from the community by then. > > -sz > > > On Apr 2, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Tianqi Chen > wrote: > > > > It

Re: Discussing plans for next MXNet releases

2019-04-02 Thread Sheng Zha
Hi Hagay, Thanks for taking the initiative. The proposed scope in this thread is in my opinion too large to fit in a single thread, so I'd suggest that we start separate threads for each individual release item. To elaborate on the reasons based on each individual item: - For 1.4.1 which is in

Re: Discussing plans for next MXNet releases

2019-04-02 Thread Pedro Larroy
Great initiative. I would like to add the issue that tracks APIs that we would like to break for 2.0 so we can take the chance to streamline and improve customer facing code: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/9686 I would be happy to volunteer for 2.0 release with assistance from

Re: Discussing plans for next MXNet releases

2019-04-02 Thread kellen sunderland
Release breakdown makes sense to me Hagay. Thanks for initiating a discussion. Some features that I'm personally looking forward to that I hope can make it into 1.5 (schedule permitting): * TensorRT being integrated with the subgraph API * VNNI MKLDNN support * AMP training in MXNet I like

Re: Podling Report Reminder - April 2019

2019-04-02 Thread Sheng Zha
Thanks for the reminder. I’m working on it and will post the draft back to the list, and would appreciate feedback from the community by then. -sz > On Apr 2, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Tianqi Chen wrote: > > It would be great if the PPMC coordinate and prepare the report > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at

Re: Podling Report Reminder - April 2019

2019-04-02 Thread Tianqi Chen
It would be great if the PPMC coordinate and prepare the report On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:00 PM Hagay Lupesko wrote: > Is anyone working on the podling report? > I'm happy to take care of that if no one else is planning to do it. > > Cheers, > Hagay > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:06 PM wrote: >

Re: Podling Report Reminder - April 2019

2019-04-02 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Is anyone working on the podling report? I'm happy to take care of that if no one else is planning to do it. Cheers, Hagay On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:06 PM wrote: > Dear podling, > > This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache > Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

2019-04-02 Thread Lieven Govaerts
Hi, On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 22:08, Mu Li wrote: > The name Gluon is originally used for a collaboration project between > Amazon and Microsoft [1]. > I pinged both Apache and Amazon legal teams later, they confirmed Gluon is > not considered as a trademark. > > [1] > >

Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai

2019-04-02 Thread Alex Zai
helps for MKLDNN backend including tests, coverage, CI :) Looking forward more cooperation together. > -Original Message- > From: Steffen Rochel [mailto:steffenroc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 8:56 AM > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Cc: Alex Zai

Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai

2019-04-01 Thread Ravi Kiran Krovvidi
ether. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Steffen Rochel [mailto:steffenroc...@gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 8:56 AM > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > > >

Re: Include R-package

2019-04-01 Thread Anirudh Acharya
There was a conversation on this some time back here - https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@mxnet.apache.org:2018-12:Rcpp%20licensing%20in%20Apache%20MXNet - Anirudh On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:19 PM Zach Kimberg wrote: > As part of the current MXNet release process, the R-package is

Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai

2019-03-31 Thread Marco de Abreu
elps for MKLDNN backend including tests, coverage, CI > :) > > > > Looking forward more cooperation together. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Steffen Rochel [mailto:steffenroc...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Monday, April 1

Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai

2019-03-31 Thread Lin Yuan
> -Original Message- > > From: Steffen Rochel [mailto:steffenroc...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 8:56 AM > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > > Cc: Alex Zai > > Subject: Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai > > > > Congratulation

RE: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai

2019-03-31 Thread Zhao, Patric
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > Cc: Alex Zai > Subject: Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai > > Congratulation Alex! > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:17 PM Carin Meier > wrote: > > > Welcome and congrats! > > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:48 PM Anir

Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai

2019-03-31 Thread Steffen Rochel
Congratulation Alex! On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:17 PM Carin Meier wrote: > Welcome and congrats! > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:48 PM Anirudh Subramanian < > anirudh2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Please join me to welcome Alex Zai as a new committer of Apache > > (incubating)

Re: [Announcement] New Committer - Alex Zai

2019-03-31 Thread Carin Meier
Welcome and congrats! On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:48 PM Anirudh Subramanian wrote: > Hi all, > > Please join me to welcome Alex Zai as a new committer of Apache > (incubating) MXNet! > > Alex has been instrumental in brining MKLDNN from experimental to making it > default on MXNet master. This

Re: Requesting slack access

2019-03-30 Thread Naveen Swamy
done. Welcome to Apache MXNet. On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:44 PM Luyang Wang wrote: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Rebrand Gluon to MXNet imperative or something MXNet.

2019-03-29 Thread Hen
(well, the Amazon ping. For the Apache ping, please share on @apache.org email;*multiple-hat-syndrome*) On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:44 AM Hen wrote: > Can you share that ping with me on our @amazon.com emails please Mu. I'd > like to understand the context better. > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >