After some reading and learning of MXNet, I tentatively made the conclusion
that the migration of MXNet to TVM, if it exists, has yet finished.
Currently, mshadow, on which most of current operator code is still based,
seems to carry out the most functionality that TVM can carry ultimately.
Will
Am 8. August 2018 21:34:47 MESZ schrieb Tianqi Chen :
>As far as I understand, these are packages that are build on top of
>gluon
>and runs on MXNet,
Going through the hosted subdomains that seems not quite correct (or the
content hosted is not entirely correct):
"Welcome to the MxNet
suggest to change pr-ready-to-merge to pr-awaiting-merge? makes it easy to
pick all pr related status.
Also think `(then merge)` is not necessary in pr-awaiting-testing
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:44 PM, sandeep krishnamurthy <
sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> << Sorry sent too early>>
>
@Sheng - Thanks for the feedback. I agree PR template provides that info.
But, one major draw back is ability to filter, group and take actions
(review, merge, ping corresponding contributors). And when we have deployed
the labelling bot (hopefully soon to happen), we should be able to
<< Sorry sent too early>>
Hello Community,
Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for review,
pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
Few of us committers (Naveen, Haibin, Anirudh and Me) and contributors
(Steffen and Hagay) met to discuss on how to
Sure, feel free to comment under the ticket!
Naveen Swamy schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018, 22:25:
> I suggest to name mxnet-bot instead of mxnet-ci-bot
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Sebastian wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I created the INFRA ticket for the bot account here
> >
> >
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Isabel Drost-Fromm
wrote:
>
>
> Am 8. August 2018 21:34:47 MESZ schrieb Tianqi Chen <
> tqc...@cs.washington.edu>:
> >As far as I understand, these are packages that are build on top of
> >gluon
> >and runs on MXNet,
>
> Going through the hosted subdomains that
Hi Sandeep,
Sorry if I asked an obvious question, but is it required to introduce a new
solution that require committer access? We have an existing solution to
communicate the PR status, which is through the PR template checklist. The
PR checklist provides clickable options to reflect the PR
I suggest to name mxnet-bot instead of mxnet-ci-bot
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Sebastian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created the INFRA ticket for the bot account here
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16884
>
> Best,
> Sebastian
>
Hello Community,
Recently, we are observing a growing number of PR open {pending for review,
pending for updates, ready to merge but waiting and more}.
To shed some light on numbers:
--
Sandeep Krishnamurthy
Thanks, Kellen for letting me know.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday.
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a
It is true that most of the current GPU code depends on mshadow. Porting
the operator code entirely over to TVM will take quite a huge effort. So a
more gradual path forward is to could be drop-in TVM to support cases that
it optimizes well(ARM, AMDGPU, accelerators) while keeping the old
Welcome Foivos, looking forward to your suggestions and recommendations.
Steffen
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:40 PM Foivos Diakogiannis <
phoevos.diakogian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> could I please have slack access?
>
> Regards,
> Foivos
>
Dear all,
could I please have slack access?
Regards,
Foivos
Hi Patric,
Design template is some preliminary work that I did and plan to propose as
part of the PR best practice(criteria). I am still working on the PR
document.
Thanks for feedback on the Design Template and you make a great point. I
discussed a similar idea with a few contributors nearby
Hi MXNet owner,
We (Intel engineers) have already wrote up several design proposals and
published into cwiki.
So, I really like this documents and it make things very clear.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+Design+Proposal+Template
Furthermore, I suggest adding a
Well we are a group of people physically located in Berlin and ready to
provide help in person. A proposal to improve the process is described here
[1]. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
And I just wanted to mention that we had already a few sessions with a lot
of people being happy about
I opened it at 6 PM, Kyiv time. Nobody was there online.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> That's a pity! I'm afraid you just missed us. Could it be possible that
> there is some mix-up due to the different time zones?
Understood. Let's try next Tuesday.
Btw: why haven't use try zoom?
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Ah, there's the problem. The time is 6-7pm CEST. Kiev is not on CEST. For
> you, that would be 5-6pm in future.
>
> -Marco
>
> Ivan
Ah, there's the problem. The time is 6-7pm CEST. Kiev is not on CEST. For
you, that would be 5-6pm in future.
-Marco
Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018,
12:40:
> I opened it at 6 PM, Kyiv time. Nobody was there online.
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Marco de Abreu <
>
Sure!
There's no special reason. We just have free access to Chime and a lot of
contributors are familiar with it. Is there any reason you prefer Zoom or
do you have issues with Chime?
-Marco
Ivan Serdyuk schrieb am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018,
13:39:
> Understood. Let's try next Tuesday.
>
> Btw: why
There are issues with a camera - it require a desktop app. It is simpler to
use zoom, as a desktop app - and not rely on a browser.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sure!
>
> There's no special reason. We just have free access to
Hi,
I created the INFRA ticket for the bot account here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16884
Best,
Sebastian
Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote
wrote:
> Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a release blocker. Do you
> have any ETA by which it will be completed? Approximate time will also
> work.
> @zhi, Thanks for bringing this
Hi,
I had a bit of time recently to walk through some of the getting started docs.
First time setup of mxnet is really well described and worked seamlessly.
Next step was going through some getting started examples - the straight dope
docs linked from the mxnet setup page were useful for that.
MXNet's website is http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/. I own mxnet.io,
which was mxnet's main site before, but now we are using its subdomains to
host various packages in the mxnet ecosystem.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Isabel Drost-Fromm
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had a bit of time recently to
Am 8. August 2018 21:17:44 MESZ schrieb Mu Li :
>MXNet's website is http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/. I own mxnet.io,
>which was mxnet's main site before, but now we are using its subdomains
>to
>host various packages in the mxnet ecosystem.
I'm still confused: There's what looks like
As far as I understand, these are packages that are build on top of gluon
and runs on MXNet, it is up to the maintainers of these packages as well
the the comitters to decide whether they want to put it into MXNet master.
I personally feel it is great to see ecosystem build and content on top of
28 matches
Mail list logo
