mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Disconnect all non-C API's from mxnet versioning
Date Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:32:26 GMT
Please cast your vote only on the subject at hand. This is leading to
confusion and unnecessary discussion/wasting time, you can start a new
thread if you so like.

I really would want to make progress on getting the Scala API to this
release.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Marco, you're mixing votes again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * This leaves us with three options: 1. Vote failed: No refactoring of
> user-facing APIs (including namespace changes) possible OR major version
> increase 2. Vote succeeded: Refactoring of user-facing APIs possible and
> only users of the changed APIs are affected while major version does not
> increase for other APIs. 3. Remove SemVer: We could introduce breaking
> changes at any point in time, but our users would be losing trust due to
> unexpected failures during upgrades.*
>
> What you're describing is not what this vote is about.  This vote is
> whether to separate mxnet and API versioning.
> Please try to stay on task.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Regarding #4: Changing namespaces is one use-case, but there will be a
> lot
> > more with increasing activity - we have to take the bigger picture in
> mind.
> > I think it is safe to say that the other APIs have not been maintained as
> > actively as our Python/Gluon API (which I would say could be versioned
> > together with MXNet Core, but it does not really make a difference). This
> > results in our APIs not reflecting all features available in MXNet (#2)
> or
> > doing it in a way that we wouldn't recommend nowadays. While it is no
> > problem to add new features to an API using a minor version change, it
> > limits our possibilites to do a refactor. Our team, for example, got a
> > customer that would like to see the functionality of the Cpp package
> being
> > increased. During analysis, we figured that a re-engineering of that API
> > would be more appropriate and easier maintainable. If we don't pass this
> > vote, we won't be able to make any improvements to our less maintained
> APIs
> > without a major version increment - which the community is also heavily
> > against. We have to do #3 anyways, so it is just about having a different
> > number set as version string - right now we're making it easy for
> ourselves
> > by basically not maintaining any other than the Python interface and
> > declining all breaking changes or refactors to APIs. I really don't see
> an
> > issue in #1 - it's a simple lookup that could be done on our website.
> > Simply select the version of MXNet you would like to have and it will
> > provide you with the appropriate installation instructions - the same way
> > we're already doing it.
> >
> > This leaves us with three options:
> > 1. Vote failed: No refactoring of user-facing APIs (including namespace
> > changes) possible OR major version increase
> > 2. Vote succeeded: Refactoring of user-facing APIs possible and only
> users
> > of the changed APIs are affected while major version does not increase
> for
> > other APIs.
> > 3. Remove SemVer: We could introduce breaking changes at any point in
> time,
> > but our users would be losing trust due to unexpected failures during
> > upgrades.
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:22 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > STRONGLY -1 (binding) as I explained in another thread 'Publishing
> > > Scala Package/namespace change'. I think separating version is
> > > harmful.
> > >
> > > 1. It is harmful to user experience
> > >     1) Each time users want to use a specific feature, need to first
> > > check the mxnet core version, then check which frontend work with this
> > > core version.
> > >     2) Each time users have problem using a frontend (Scala/R/...)
> > > API, need to figure out which core version they are using.
> > > 2. Frontend APIs are tightly binding to the 'MXNet Core', e.g., almost
> > > all APIs extract operator definitions from the Core, which makes the
> > > API version and Core version a one-on-one mapping. Then why separate?
> > > 3. It introduces overhead for release. Now each release need to
> > > involve a bunch of frontend release version, along with the MXNet core
> > > release version.
> > > 4. The only benefit I see so far is, it makes easier for Scala package
> > > to change the namespace from ml.dmlc to org.apache (by increasing
> > > Scala API major version id without changing the MXNet core major
> > > version). But,
> > >    1) It is very likely that, this is the ONLY time we benefit from
> > > separate versioning. Changing namespace is a very rare issue that
> > > forces us to make APIs incompatible. In other situations, the APIs
> > > evolves smoothly which can stay compatible for a long time.
> > >    2) We can still discuss whether we have to change the major version.
> > >    3) Even the answer to 2) is Yes, I think it is affordable to wait
> > > for MXNet 2.0 to change 'ml.dmlc' to 'org.apache'
> > > 5. Other Apache projects, e.g., Apache Spark, have PySpark (Python
> > > frontend API), SparkR (R frontend API), MLLib, GraphX, etc, same
> > > version as the Spark Core, as well as the Scala/Java API. I feel it
> > > convenient since every time I check a document, say, MLLib 1.6.0, I
> > > can tell it works with Spark Core 1.6.0 and GraphX 1.6.0. And I can
> > > expect when I use Python API 1.6.0, it will behave the same.
> > >
> > > and for +1 votings, do you mean to separate Python/Gluon API versioning
> > as
> > > well?
> > >
> > > 2018-03-12 11:18 GMT-07:00 Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com>:
> > > > -1 for different versioning, it not only be maintenance nightmare but
> > > also
> > > > more importantly confusing to users,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Marco de Abreu <
> > > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> According to the discussion in the Scala thread, the release cycles
> > > would
> > > >> stay unchanged and are still part of the mxnet releases.
> > > >>
> > > >> Nan Zhu <zhunanmcgill@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo., 12. März 2018,
> > 17:42:
> > > >>
> > > >> > how about release cycle?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Yuan Tang <
> terrytangyuan@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > +1
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> > > >> > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > +1
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Tianqi Chen <tqchen@cs.washington.edu> schrieb
am Mo., 12.
> März
> > > >> 2018,
> > > >> > > > 17:33:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > +1
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Chris Olivier
<
> > > >> > cjolivier01@apache.org
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > It has been proposed that all Non-C API's
follow separate
> > > >> > versioning
> > > >> > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > the main mxnet C API/releases.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > A +1 vote is in *favor of* using a different
versioning
> for
> > > all
> > > >> > > > > > non-C-API's, with each API (Scala, R, Julia,
C++, etc.)
> > having
> > > >> its
> > > >> > > own
> > > >> > > > > > version.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > A -1 vote is *against* using a different
versioning for
> all
> > > >> > > > non-C-API's,
> > > >> > > > > > with all API's (Scala, R, Julia, C++, etc.)
sharing the
> > mxnet
> > > >> > > version.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > This vote will conclude on Monday, March
19, 2018.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > -Chris
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yizhi Liu
> > > DMLC member
> > > Amazon Web Services
> > > Vancouver, Canada
> > >
> >
>

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