Invited. Welcome!
On 2019/07/18 16:47:12, Kshitij Kalambarkar
wrote:
>
>
Hi,
While 1.5.0 vote on general@incubator is still on going, I’d like to propose
that we start planning for 1.6.0. To this end, I started a discussion on the
roadmap on GitHub https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15589.
If no objection, we will conclude the discussion in two weeks
Dear MXNet community,
I'd like to reopen the discussion on deprecating python2 support. This would
help modernize the design and engineering practice in MXNet to help improve
speed and quality.
For this purpose, I reopened the issue on this here:
+1
-Marco
Sheng Zha schrieb am Do., 18. Juli 2019, 19:59:
> Dear MXNet community,
>
> I'd like to reopen the discussion on deprecating python2 support. This
> would help modernize the design and engineering practice in MXNet to help
> improve speed and quality.
>
> For this purpose, I reopened
+1
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:03 AM Marco de Abreu
wrote:
> +1
>
> -Marco
>
> Sheng Zha schrieb am Do., 18. Juli 2019, 19:59:
>
> > Dear MXNet community,
> >
> > I'd like to reopen the discussion on deprecating python2 support. This
> > would help modernize the design and engineering practice
+1
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:12 AM Anirudh Acharya
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:03 AM Marco de Abreu
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> > Sheng Zha schrieb am Do., 18. Juli 2019, 19:59:
> >
> > > Dear MXNet community,
> > >
> > > I'd like to reopen the discussion on
+1
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Junru Shao wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:12 AM Anirudh Acharya
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:03 AM Marco de Abreu >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > -Marco
> > >
> > > Sheng Zha schrieb am Do., 18. Juli 2019, 19:59:
>
+1
Best regards,
Tong He
Jake Lee 于2019年7月18日周四 上午11:29写道：
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Junru Shao
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:12 AM Anirudh Acharya
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:03 AM Marco de Abreu <
>
+1
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:31 AM Tong He wrote:
> +1
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tong He
>
>
> Jake Lee 于2019年7月18日周四 上午11:29写道：
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Junru Shao
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:12 AM Anirudh Acharya <
>
+1
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Yuxi Hu wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:31 AM Tong He wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Tong He
> >
> >
> > Jake Lee 于2019年7月18日周四 上午11:29写道：
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Junru Shao
> > > wrote:
> > >
> >
I'd have it check signatures. Ssl is optional I think. China users seem to
have issues with SSL... That may have changed, but I think we might have to
work around that for background downloads for models.
With regard to the current links to dmlc.ml, I asked ivy to just get rid of
them with # if
Hi.
These two prs are fixing warnings on different platforms and removing
some code bloat due to inlines. Could you guys help get them in? they
are open for a while.
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15270
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14940
Thanks.
Pedro.
On
I'm not entirely sure about dropping docs for old versions to be honest.
The root cause in my opinion is the fact that the build is wy to
complicated. If it would have less dependencies and be more
straight-forward, it should be a matter of seconds. The key here could be
to separate the docs
Are we using Jira or some other tool (Trello?) for planning? I think
getting more visibility on some of on the major ongoing activities
would help rally contributions around them. If they link to the design
document and group PRs in a single place (I think Jira or trello can
do that) it would help
I think that's what the GitHub issue is for. The referenced issues can then
automatically be tracked in a GitHub progress/kanban board.
-Marco
Pedro Larroy schrieb am Do., 18. Juli 2019,
21:32:
> Are we using Jira or some other tool (Trello?) for planning? I think
> getting more visibility on
+1
This would simplify CI, reduce costs and more. I think a followup
question is what would be the mininum Python3 version supported?
Depending on that we might be able to use type annotations for example
or other features.
Pedro.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:07 PM Yuan Tang wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On
I would suggest supporting Python 3.5+ since the earlier versions have
reached end-of-life status:
https://devguide.python.org/devcycle/#end-of-life-branches
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 3:36 PM Pedro Larroy
wrote:
> +1
>
> This would simplify CI, reduce costs and more. I think a followup
> question
I agree with you. I'd like the website to be fairly standard Jekyll and
normal front end stuff, rather than a Sphinx template. Docs would be docs
built by doxygen, Sphinx, Scala, java, etc, based on their native docs
generation, and we'd get a microsite for each language binding. If one
breaks it
I see. Would you mind linking the thread/doc where we discussed the
requirements for the new website?
-Marco
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:49 PM Aaron Markham
wrote:
> I agree with you. I'd like the website to be fairly standard Jekyll and
> normal front end stuff, rather than a Sphinx template.
Looking at EOL is certainly a good idea! I think once we get closer to
deprecation, we can check adoption statistics to make a well-informed
decision that gives us the most advantages without dropping the ball on a
majority of users (or supporting a branch that is going EOL soon). A survey
from
What I have written doesn't directly align with the beta site. The site was
created by Mu, and several people have contributed to updating it with
content. The repo is here https://github.com/mli/new-docs
There's no architecture doc afaik.
I have docs for a redesign and new ux in the wiki:
Great, thanks for the links and for working on the plan. I think the
community should align on the requirements of the new website as long as
it's still in development. We can then do an analysis in how far the
current state of the beta website differs from the requirements and make
that part of
Seems 3.6 is a reasonable choice.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:15 PM Marco de Abreu wrote:
>
> Looking at EOL is certainly a good idea! I think once we get closer to
> deprecation, we can check adoption statistics to make a well-informed
> decision that gives us the most advantages without dropping
+1
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 04:28 Pedro Larroy
wrote:
> Seems 3.6 is a reasonable choice.
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:15 PM Marco de Abreu
> wrote:
> >
> > Looking at EOL is certainly a good idea! I think once we get closer to
> > deprecation, we can check adoption statistics to make a
25 matches
Mail list logo
