mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.0.1
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:01:38 GMT
-.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/thread.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/thread.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