mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steffen Rochel <steffenroc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.0.1
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:24 GMT
I support the proposal from Nan - this is a practical and productive way. I
include Nan's description into
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+Versioning+and+Branching


We should make API changes very carefully and need to depend on the
community to flag any changes until we have better test coverage.

Steffen

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:30 AM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Marco: Ok, well then it sounds like a good time for the community to
> re-think how we look for API changes ;-).  We can continue the chat in the
> semver proposal, but maybe we could create a collection of APIs we consider
> to be semver'd and review those interfaces each release.  Spending reviewer
> and contributor time each PR on something that we ultimately ignore doesn't
> seem productive.
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:29 PM, kellen sunderland <
> kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes this is also what I'd suggest Nan, sorry if I wasn't clear.  My
> > comment was referring to 2.  So as an example for our current release we
> > could cut a new minor release including new features such as the text
> api,
> > scala rename, but we could cherry-pick the important bug fixes and apply
> > them to the 1.0.x branch.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcgill@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> regarding "I'd agree that we should apply most of the fixes to the
> >> previous
> >> release branch and build from there."
> >>
> >> my suggestion is actually a bit different with this, my idea is that
> >>
> >> 1. we always work with master branch, and when there is a date for
> >> releasing a new version (minor or major) one, we cut a new branch and
> >> announce code freeze for that version (of course, there is some
> exception
> >> to merge the previously-ignored blockers to the newly cut branch)
> >>
> >> 2. after the release, we still work in master for the next (at least
> minor
> >> version) and cautiously backport the patches to the last cut branch
> >> (assuming that we always maintain only one previous minor version)
> >>
> >> with this model, what we would do now is cut a new 1.1 branch for the
> >> coming release, if it is necessary to have a maintenance version, we
> would
> >> cherry-pick the important and backward-compatible fixes to 1.0.x branch
> >> (though ideally this should be done when merging fixes to master )
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Nan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:01 AM, kellen sunderland <
> >> kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > -.5 (non-binding) to releasing as a minor release.  If we don't have
> any
> >> > breaking API changes, and we haven't added any major features I would
> >> tend
> >> > to release this as a patch release.  The reason being that
> organizations
> >> > and users will know that they can apply this release without making
> >> major
> >> > changes to their dependencies.  It also helps set expectations around
> >> the
> >> > degree of regression testing you'd expect to do on a release
> (typically
> >> > patch releases would require less testing).  For that reason if we
> >> release
> >> > as a patch release I think we could expect better adoption rates in
> the
> >> > community and within large tech orgs.  If we release as a minor
> release
> >> we
> >> > should expect that many customers may take a long time to update, and
> >> as a
> >> > community we will be forced to provide support for bugs which have
> >> already
> >> > been fixed.
> >> >
> >> > +1 (non-binding) In terms of branching I'd agree that we should apply
> >> most
> >> > of the fixes to the previous release branch and build from there.
> >> Happy to
> >> > help with this if needed.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcgill@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 and suggest consolidating all maintenance releases under the same
> >> > > major.minor version into a single branch
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> >> > meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I agree. If the release candidate is being cut from the master
> >> branch,
> >> > it
> >> > > > should be considered a minor release.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Anyway the effort involved in the release process is exactly
the
> >> same
> >> > in
> >> > > > either case.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Meghna
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Jan 24, 2018 8:56 PM, "Marco de Abreu" <
> >> > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Are there any particular reasons why we are classifying
this
> >> release
> >> > as
> >> > > > > patch instead of minor release? As far as I know, we don't
have
> >> any
> >> > > tests
> >> > > > > in place to determine API changes and thus can't guarantee
that
> >> this
> >> > is
> >> > > > an
> >> > > > > actual patch release. Considering the fact that PRs have
been
> >> merged
> >> > > > > without having semantic versioning in place, this could
be quite
> >> > risky.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Instead, I'd rather propose to make a minor release 1.1
instead
> of
> >> > > patch
> >> > > > > release 1.0.1.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Marco
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Am 24.01.2018 7:20 nachm. schrieb "Zha, Sheng" <
> >> zhasheng@amazon.com
> >> > >:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > There’s an experimental API for text data indexing
and
> >> embedding in
> >> > > > > > mx.contrib.text.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - Sent by my thumb
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Chris Olivier <
> >> > cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > the profiling PR contains a small breaking change,
but i
> don’t
> >> > > think
> >> > > > > it’s
> >> > > > > > > going into 1.0.1
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:48 PM Haibin Lin
<
> >> > > > haibin.lin.aws@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Hi everyone,
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Since the plan was to cut a branch from the
master branch,
> >> the
> >> > > code
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> include changes other than the bug fix PRs
noted in the
> >> release
> >> > > > note.
> >> > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > >> anyone aware of any API changes in the current
MXNet master
> >> > > branch?
> >> > > > In
> >> > > > > > >> particular, are there backward incompatible
ones?
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Best,
> >> > > > > > >> Haibin
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Haibin Lin
<
> >> > > > > haibin.lin.aws@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>> Hi Sheng,
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> 1. I've been following the discussion
on the branching &
> >> > > versioning
> >> > > > > > >>> thread. Features like MKLDNN integration
should not go to
> >> patch
> >> > > > > release
> >> > > > > > >>> 1.0.1, and it's risky to merge large PRs
right before the
> >> > > release.
> >> > > > > I've
> >> > > > > > >>> removed the MKLDNN section from the release
note.
> >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache
> >> > > > > > .
> >> > > > > > >>>
> org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+
> >> > > > > > >>> 1.0.1+Release+Notes
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> 2. I agree that we should aim for better
test coverage &
> >> stable
> >> > > CI,
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >>> get those disabled/flaky tests fixed eventually.
Fixing
> >> these
> >> > > > > requires
> >> > > > > > >>> efforts from the community and I strongly
encourage
> >> > contributors
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > help.
> >> > > > > > >>> Removing the corresponding feature from
the release
> doesn't
> >> > sound
> >> > > > > > >> practical
> >> > > > > > >>> since users might be already using some
of those. I
> suggest
> >> > that
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > > keep
> >> > > > > > >>> track of these tests on Apache Wiki and
make sure they are
> >> > > > addressed
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >>> the release after 1.0.1.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> Hi everyone,
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> In terms of the current status for this
release, all
> >> critical
> >> > bug
> >> > > > > fixes
> >> > > > > > >>> are merged (to the best of my knowledge)
and we have made
> >> good
> >> > > > > progress
> >> > > > > > >>> fixing license issues. As Meghna mentioned,
a list of open
> >> > > > questions
> >> > > > > > >>> regarding license is at
> >> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> >> > > > > > >>> MXNet+Source+Licenses section D - it would
be great if we
> >> can
> >> > get
> >> > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >>> clarification/help/feedback from Apache
mentors.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> I suggest that we shoot for code freeze
for 1.0.1 rc0 this
> >> > > > Wednesday.
> >> > > > > > >> Does
> >> > > > > > >>> anyone have concern or objection on this?
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> Best,
> >> > > > > > >>> Haibin
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Steffen
Rochel <
> >> > > > > > steffenrochel@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> Hi Sheng -
> >> > > > > > >>>> 1. branch usage and versioning - lets
converge our
> >> discussion
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > >> document
> >> > > > > > >>>> the agreement on wiki. I started a
draft summarizing my
> >> > > > > understanding
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >>>> the proposal at
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+
> >> > > > > > >>>> Versioning+and+Branching.
> >> > > > > > >>>> Lets work together to refine and clarify
the draft, so we
> >> have
> >> > > > > clarity
> >> > > > > > >>>> going forward. I'm inviting everyone
to contribute to
> this
> >> > > > > discussion.
> >> > > > > > >>>> As MKLDNN integration is not ready
yet and we want to
> >> release
> >> > > all
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> good
> >> > > > > > >>>> improvements including updates in
tutorials and
> >> documentation
> >> > I
> >> > > > > > suggest
> >> > > > > > >> we
> >> > > > > > >>>> move forward with the release asap.
As we don't have
> major
> >> > > > features
> >> > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >>>> non-compatible API changes (to best
of my knowledge) I
> >> think
> >> > it
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > > >>>> appropriate to label the release as
1.0.1.
> >> > > > > > >>>> Note: This label indicates a patch
release. Patch
> releases
> >> > > should
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > >>>> created from the related release branch.
As we didn't
> plan
> >> for
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >>>> minimize overhead I suggest we make
a one time exception
> to
> >> > cut
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> 1.0.1
> >> > > > > > >>>> release from master branch and clearly
communicate in
> >> release
> >> > > > notes.
> >> > > > > > >> Going
> >> > > > > > >>>> forward we should follow the methodology
for versioning
> and
> >> > > > > branching
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >>>> whatever we agree on.
> >> > > > > > >>>> 2. Disabled tests: I agree with your
concerns that we had
> >> to
> >> > > > disable
> >> > > > > > 13
> >> > > > > > >>>> tests due to non-deterministic behavior
(see issues
> >> > > > > > >>>> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/labels/Flaky
> >).
> >> > I'm
> >> > > > > > calling
> >> > > > > > >> on
> >> > > > > > >>>> all contributors to help to resolve
the non-deterministic
> >> > > > behavior,
> >> > > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> we
> >> > > > > > >>>> can improve our test coverage. As
we discussed offline,
> >> lets
> >> > > tests
> >> > > > > > >>>> manually
> >> > > > > > >>>> short term, document the known issue
in the release notes
> >> and
> >> > > > > > prioritize
> >> > > > > > >>>> efforts post 1.0.1 release.
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> Regards,
> >> > > > > > >>>> Steffen
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:05 PM
Sheng Zha <
> >> > zhasheng@apache.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Haibin,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for leading this. I suggest
that we hold onto
> this
> >> > > release
> >> > > > > > >> until
> >> > > > > > >>>> we
> >> > > > > > >>>>> have clarity on the following
items.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> 1. branch usage and versioning
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Given that we are past 1.0 and
we're changing APIs, I'd
> >> like
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > >> suggest
> >> > > > > > >>>>> that we first agree on how
> >> > > > > > >>>>> versioning works in mxnet. If
we follow semantic
> >> versioning,
> >> > it
> >> > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >>>>> suggest that features like
> >> > > > > > >>>>> MKL-DNN should go at least into
1.1 (minor version
> change)
> >> > > > instead
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >>>>> 1.0.1 (patch release).
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Also, assuming that new release
will come from a new
> >> forked
> >> > > > > branch, I
> >> > > > > > >>>>> suggest that we clarify on how
to
> >> > > > > > >>>>> name the branches too.
> >> > > > > > >>>>> You can find relevant thread at
> >> > > > > > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/threa
> >> d.html/c52f8353f63c1e63b2646ec
> >> > > > > > >>>> 3b08d9a8180a1381787d777b41b8ac69f@%
> 3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org
> >> %3E
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> 2. disabled tests
> >> > > > > > >>>>> For the purpose of stabilizing
test automation system,
> >> many
> >> > > tests
> >> > > > > > were
> >> > > > > > >>>>> disabled. In order to avoid
> >> > > > > > >>>>> releasing untested features, we
should mitigate the
> >> situation
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > >> having
> >> > > > > > >>>>> disabled tests.
> >> > > > > > >>>>> That means we can fix the tests
before the release, or
> >> remove
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >>>>> corresponding feature from release
> >> > > > > > >>>>> (might be hard to do, e.g. for
optimizer). Otherwise, we
> >> must
> >> > > > > > >>>> collectively
> >> > > > > > >>>>> decide that a feature is
> >> > > > > > >>>>> OK to release without tests.
> >> > > > > > >>>>> The thread on this topic can be
found at
> >> > > > > > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/threa
> >> d.html/addab1937bfcf09b5dfa15c
> >> > > > > > >>>> 1149ddcebd084f1c4bf4e10a73770fb35@%
> 3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org
> >> %3E
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> We can proceed on the release
with more confidence once
> we
> >> > have
> >> > > > > > >> clarity.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >>>>> -sz
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> On 2018-01-10 15:33, Haibin
Lin <
> >> haibin.lin.aws@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> I am starting the process
to prepare for MXNET 1.0.1
> >> > release.
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> drafted release notes
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> (*
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+
> >> > > > > > >>>> MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0.1+Release+Notes
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> <
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+
> >> > > > > > >>>> MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0.1+Release+Notes
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> *)
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> to cover the tasks under this
release.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> A release candidate will be
cut on Monday 22nd Jan,
> 2018
> >> and
> >> > > > > voting
> >> > > > > > >>>> will
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> commence from then till Thursday
25th Jan, 2018. If you
> >> have
> >> > > any
> >> > > > > > >>>>> additional
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> features in progress and would
like to include it in
> this
> >> > > > release,
> >> > > > > > >>>> please
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> assure they have been merged
by Thursday 18th Jan, 2018
> >> with
> >> > > > > comment
> >> > > > > > >>>> so I
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> may update the release notes.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Feel free to add any other
comments/suggestions.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Haibin
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message