mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Publishing Scala Package/namespace change
Date Fri, 09 Mar 2018 22:09:47 GMT
MXNet Scala APis already generate a MXNet Core Scala package based off the
cpp backend already. I think customers who are building from source would
love to get Maven package given that it takes so much pain.

Are you suggesting we take MXNet-Scala APIs into a separate release cycle,
it is possible and can start with this one but It would not make a lot of
sense to start MXNet-Scala 1.0 depending on MXNet 1.0(cpp). This won't very
different from breaking backward compatibility when we release a new
package.

IMO managing separate release cycles for different language bindings could
turn into a lot of work for the community unnecessarily especially since
they are closely

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com
> wrote:

> While it has never been published, there have still been releases under
> Apache and - as you mentioned - customers that build off the source. This
> would cause compatibility issues.
>
> In general I actively support the idea of enhancing the Scala package, but
> I think that we have to solve another problem first. At the moment, all
> APIs are bound to the MXNet core versioning and vica versa.
>
> In my opinion, we should first separate the APIs from the MXNet core, start
> versioning them separately and then make changes like these. While it would
> be possible (although not right) to make an exception here, we still don't
> solve the root problem and we are going to run into the same issues with
> the next big API update.
>
> Just to mention another example: our team got a request to rewrite the Cpp
> package, but we actually would not be able to merge it into MXNet since it
> breaks the existing Cpp package API - means we would need a major version
> increase.
>
> We really should solve this problem once and for all, giving back a lot of
> freedom and reducing overhead in the long term.
>
> -Marco
>
> YiZhi Liu <eazhi.liu@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 9. März 2018, 22:44:
>
> > +1 for changing the namespace asap. for the maven deploy, we can have
> > it build along with pip deployment.
> >
> >
> > 2018-03-09 10:15 GMT-08:00 Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > I am working on MXNet Scala Inference APIs
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MXNET-50> along with another
> > > contributor Roshani. A while back I noticed that we haven't been
> > publishing
> > > the scala package to Maven for a while now(last one being v0.11.1a
> under
> > > the dmlc namespace).
> > > Currently users have to build the package manually and then use it,
> this
> > > hinders adoption and also is painful to build everything from source.
> > >
> > > I also see that we haven't changed the namespace to org.apache and
> > instead
> > > are still ml.dmlc namespace.
> > >
> > > I wanted to seek your opinion about changing the MXNet-Scala package
> > > namespace to org.apache for the Scala package and publish to Maven in
> the
> > > upcoming release. I understand that this probably breaks the Semver
> > > semantics that is agreed upon, However I would like to point out that
> the
> > > Scala package has never been published to maven as 1.0 under
> org.apache.
> > >
> > > Open to suggestions.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Naveen
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Yizhi Liu
> > DMLC member
> > Amazon Web Services
> > Vancouver, Canada
> >
>

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