Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.10.0-incubating (RC1)

+1 From: Glenn Weidner/Silicon Valley/IBM@IBMUS To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org Date: 05/26/2016 03:35 PM Subject:Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.10.0-incubating (RC1) +1 --Glenn Acs S ---05/26/2016 03:30:57 PM---+1 -Arvind From: Acs S To:

Re: [DISCUSS] Version-specific documentation

Having a separate language reference for each version is a good idea. Eventually we will have users running backlevel versions of the system. We can cover that need by adding an "archive the current state of the documentation" step to our release process. Fred Sent from my iPhone

Creating a new SystemML maintenance release: 0.9.1

Hi all, Since we have fixed a number of issues since the 0.9.0 release, it's about time to do a maintenance release of SystemML. As a reminder, the release process goes as follows: Step 1: Identify the full set of fixes to be backported into the 0.9.x branch. Step 2: Backport the fixes and

Re: Discussion SYSTEMML-593 MLContext Resign

Luciano Resende wrote on 04/02/2016 10:20:06 PM: > From: Luciano Resende > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org > Cc: Deron Eriksson/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS > Date: 04/02/2016 10:20 PM > Subject: Re: Discussion SYSTEMML-593 MLContext Resign > > On

Re: Question on SystemML - RBMs and repmat()

ty. By the way, it's good to post questions like your question below the mailing list so that others who run into the same issue will have an easier time finding the solution; I'm CCing the list with my response here. Fred From: Nikolay Manchev/UK/IBM To: Frederick R Reiss/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS Da

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.13.0-incubating (RC1)

-1 this RC doesn't work on Spark 2.0.x due to the bug described in the thread "Re: Minimum required Spark version". We should put in the one-line change described in that thread and cut a new release candidate with just that change. Fred From: Arvind Surve To:

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache SystemML Release 1.0.0

I would favor declaring a 1.0 release. Having two digits in the minor release is a bit awkward, and the project has progressed enough in terms of functionality and stability to warrant a major release number bump. Fred From: Luciano Resende To:

Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML releases 0.11 and 1.0

+1. Definitely time for another release; the 0.10 code is pretty stale relative to what's available on the trunk. Fred From: Deron Eriksson To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org Date: 09/21/2016 11:10 AM Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML releases 0.11

Re: Proof of Concept: Embedded Scala DSL

Maybe I'm missing a subtle point here, but why not refactor the existing class org.apache.sysml.parser.DMLProgram into our common internal representation across DSLs? This class is already sufficiently expressive to represent any DML or PyDML program. Fred From: Niketan

Re: Enhancing SystemML JavaDocs

Wow, I was not aware that those empty JavaDocs were put in -- and left in -- on purpose! To me they are the epitome of useless comments. At best they convey exactly the same information as the line of code immediately below them. Much of the time they end up conveying an incorrect, out-of-date

Re: test suite running slowly after disable cache/sparse commit?

Reinwald/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS, Frederick R Reiss/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS Date: 12/08/2016 11:06 AM Subject:Re: test suite running slowly after disable cache/sparse commit? Hi Niketan, Perhaps Berthold or Fred could add a little guidance here in terms of what is acceptable

Re: Time To Merge Spark 2.0 Support PR

I agree that we should move forward on the merge now. Fred From: Mike Dusenberry To: dev Date: 01/06/2017 11:55 AM Subject:Time To Merge Spark 2.0 Support PR Hi to the SystemML community! As you may know,

Re: Combining Multiple Matrix

Hi Arijit, Have you considered using parfor and left indexing? Here's an example from the docs that generates a large matrix out of smaller chunks: ms = matrix(0, rows=2, cols=3*10) parfor (v in 1:10, check=0) { mv = matrix(v, rows=2, cols=3) ms[,(v-1)*3+1:v*3] = mv } SystemML has a