mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Publishing Scala Package/namespace change
Date Sun, 11 Mar 2018 21:26:59 GMT
Since someone mentioned ABI, keep in mind that API compatibility does not
necessarily mean ABI compatibility. libpython, for example, may, within a
major version, guarantee backwards API compatibility (you can still compile
successfully), but  does not guarantee ABI compatibility, as structure
sizes may change, for example.

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 1:56 PM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Did ML lib increase their major version after deprecating RDD?"
>
> Answering my own question.  They will increase major version after RDD is
> removed.  This is basically scenario 1 from above.  It would mean we
> release MXNet 2.0 with the Scala changes.
>
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 9:54 PM, kellen sunderland <
> kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Why refactoring and deprecating means separating version from mxnet
> > core?  Apache Spark MLLib refactors and deprecates a lot (e.g., they
> > deprecates RDD API), our C API also deprecates things, remember there
> are a
> > bunch of xxxEx in c_api.h?"
> >
> > Did ML lib increase their major version after deprecating RDD?
> >
> > "They will. Scala API runs auto code-generation to extract Symbol method
> > from MXNet core. For example, users can write and compile
> > Symbol.NewOperator with one Scala API version, but they cannot run it
> with
> > an mxnet-core .so which does not have NewOperator / or have NewOperator
> > with different args."
> >
> > Not sure I fully understand the scenario you're describing here.  Is this
> > the case where a user writes a new operator against one version of
> > libmxnet.so and then runs it on an older version?  In this case they'd
> need
> > to set a dependency on the current libmxnet.so ABI that they're running
> > against, and ensure that their jar was using that version or newer.  This
> > is the goal of SemVer per interface.
> >
> > "By doing major version change to Scala API, we remind users 'hey, be
> > careful, we have something incompatible!' But then what?"
> > They either choose to update their package and then fix potential
> breaking
> > API changes (the likely case), or they stick with the current version.
> >
> > "Users get more confused with the version mapping. And it introduces
> > overhead to maintain."
> > I'm not sure why users even need to know about the version mapping.  If
> > I'm only interested in the Scala package from maven, why do I care which
> > version of libmxnet.so I'm using?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Changing namespaces is one example of a required major version change,
> >> but
> >> > there are more reasons like general refactoring or some deprecated
> APIs
> >> > just being hard to maintain.
> >>
> >> Why refactoring and deprecating means separating version from mxnet
> core?
> >> Apache Spark MLLib refactors and deprecates a lot (e.g., they deprecates
> >> RDD API), our C API also deprecates things, remember there are a bunch
> of
> >> xxxEx in c_api.h?
> >>
> >> They won't get a strange error, assuming we're talking about Scala users
> >> > who are upgrading from a package with the same namespace they will
> rely
> >> on
> >> > the package manager to give them an update which should be painless.
> >>
> >> They will. Scala API runs auto code-generation to extract Symbol method
> >> from MXNet core. For example, users can write and compile
> >> Symbol.NewOperator with one Scala API version, but they cannot run it
> with
> >> an mxnet-core .so which does not have NewOperator / or have NewOperator
> >> with different args.
> >>
> >> By doing major version change to Scala API, we remind users 'hey, be
> >> careful, we have something incompatible!' But then what? Users get more
> >> confused with the version mapping. And it introduces overhead to
> maintain.
> >>
> >> @Chris, I think we can have two separate votes.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-03-11 9:19 GMT-07:00 Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Ok, so why don’t we have two votes?
> >> >
> >> > 1) change namespace is a separate vote since it’s a code change and
> has
> >> > different voting rules (can be vetoed)
> >> >
> >> > 2) whether to disconnect non-C-API versioning from C-API versioning
> and
> >> > have parallel versioning of all non-C APIs (process rule, so
> majority, I
> >> > think is the rule, right?)
> >> >
> >> > -Chris
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 8:46 AM kellen sunderland <
> >> > kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Sorry, the namespace should have been 'org.apache.mxnet' with the
> >> > artifact
> >> > > as 'mxnet-incubating'.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 4:44 PM, kellen sunderland <
> >> > > kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > YiZhi, In general I agree that your points and examples are the
> >> ideal
> >> > > > case, but in the MXNet situation there are some trade-offs we
have
> >> to
> >> > > > make.  Let me try to specifically answer your points:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Do you mean we have different version for 'ml.dmlc' namespace
and
> >> > > > 'org.apache' namespace?"
> >> > > > No I am not trying to saying that. I believe Marco, Naveen and
I
> are
> >> > all
> >> > > > proposing we use a single org.apache.incubating.mxnet namespace
> >> moving
> >> > > > forward, which would require a major version change to our product
> >> API
> >> > > > under our current versioning scheme.  Marco and I are proposing
we
> >> > apply
> >> > > > this MV change _only_ to the scala package's API.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "How to tell which Scala API version works with which MXNet core
> >> > version?
> >> > > > By document?"
> >> > > > Yes users will be able to tell via the website, release docs,
> maven
> >> > > > package information, pom file, etc.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "How many users will read the whole document and carefully pair
> the
> >> > > > version id before they run into a strange error and give up?"
> >> > > > They won't get a strange error, assuming we're talking about
Scala
> >> > users
> >> > > > who are upgrading from a package with the same namespace they
will
> >> rely
> >> > > on
> >> > > > the package manager to give them an update which should be
> painless.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Secondly software developers understand that packages, not
> products,
> >> > have
> >> > > > versions.  They know that these versions are used to communicate
> >> when
> >> > > APIs
> >> > > > are broken.  There's examples of Apache packages doing this for
> >> > packages
> >> > > > that include multiple interfaces, for example first-party modules
> >> > > packaged
> >> > > > with the HTTP server, or log4j's language bindings (arguably
quite
> >> > > similar
> >> > > > to what Naveen is doing).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > While we can debate the right way to version packages, I think
> >> there's
> >> > a
> >> > > > clear community decision here to get Naveen unblocked:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > (1) We continue semantically versioning across all APIs, meaning
> >> that
> >> > > this
> >> > > > change would get released with MXNet 2.*.
> >> > > > (2) You version package interfaces semantically and have a
> >> compatible
> >> > > > version mapping.
> >> > > > (3) Status quo, we continue to release a Scala package as-is,
> >> breaking
> >> > > > apache guidelines for artifact generation.
> >> > > > (4) We rely on the namespace change itself to communicate a change
> >> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > interface.  We don't consider this a major change.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > My (non-binding) preference would be for option 2.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -Kellen
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> >> > > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Changing namespaces is one example of a required major version
> >> change,
> >> > > but
> >> > > >> there are more reasons like general refactoring or some
> deprecated
> >> > APIs
> >> > > >> just being hard to maintain. Things like these happen quite
> >> frequently
> >> > > and
> >> > > >> it's a problem every software project has to face and find
a
> >> solution
> >> > > for.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Regarding ' How to tell which Scala API version works with
which
> >> MXNet
> >> > > >> core
> >> > > >> version?': We could just bundle MXNet with the released API
> >> package as
> >> > > we
> >> > > >> do right now, but we would give each interface it's own version
> and
> >> > > >> publish
> >> > > >> them on their distribution platforms accordingly. Just an
> example:
> >> > > >> >Scala-Package -> MXNet-Version
> >> > > >> >> 1.0 -> 1.0
> >> > > >> >> 1.1 -> 1.1
> >> > > >> >> 2.0 -> 1.2
> >> > > >> >> 2.1 -> 1.3
> >> > > >> >> 3.0 -> 2.0
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > R-Package -> MXNet-Version
> >> > > >> >> 1.0 -> 1.0
> >> > > >> >> 2.0 -> 1.1
> >> > > >> >> 2.1 -> 1.2
> >> > > >> >> 2.2 -> 1.3
> >> > > >> >> 3.0 -> 2.0
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> This is always an N-to-1 mapping, while N being the versions
of
> our
> >> > APIs
> >> > > >> and 1 the MXNet Core version. From MXNets versioning perspective,
> >> this
> >> > > >> would then looking the following:
> >> > > >> > MXNet-Version -> APIs
> >> > > >> >> 1.0 -> Scala_1.0; R_1.0
> >> > > >> >> 1.1 -> Scala_1.1; R_2.0
> >> > > >> >> 1.2 -> Scala_2.0; R_2.1
> >> > > >> >> 1.3 -> Scala_2.1; R_2.2
> >> > > >> >> 2.0 -> Scala_3.0; R_3.0
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> This would give us the liberty to develop MXNet without
> >> restricting us
> >> > > too
> >> > > >> much - of course, major version increments will still have
to be
> >> > > >> considered
> >> > > >> carefully. I don't think that this would harm transparency
too
> much
> >> > and
> >> > > >> there's no need to write big documentation.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> -Marco
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, YiZhi Liu <liuyizhi@apache.org
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > I have no idea how separating Scala API version can
solve the
> >> > > >> > 'compatibility' problem. Do you mean we have different
version
> >> for
> >> > > >> > 'ml.dmlc' namespace and 'org.apache' namespace? Do these
two
> >> > versions
> >> > > >> > have same behavior? How to tell which Scala API version
works
> >> with
> >> > > >> > which MXNet core version? By document? How many users
will read
> >> the
> >> > > >> > whole document and carefully pair the version id before
they
> run
> >> > into
> >> > > >> > a strange error and give up?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Moreover, changing namespace is an issue that is really
rare
> and
> >> > > >> > hardly happens. For other 'compatibility' problem, for
example,
> >> the
> >> > > >> > class/function definitions, should handle the compatibility
> >> itself.
> >> > > >> > You'll never expect a project to have a different version
for
> >> > changing
> >> > > >> > 'calculate(int)' to 'calculate(float)', it should just
add a
> new
> >> > > >> > function 'calculate(float)'.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Regarding 'In this case the Scala interface is clearly
a
> separate
> >> > > >> > entity from the C API.'. Everything can be seen as a
separate
> >> > entity,
> >> > > >> > the mxnet engine, the graph description, operators,
python API,
> >> > gluon
> >> > > >> > API, etc. We should think carefully what we want to
provide,
> and
> >> > what
> >> > > >> > our users need.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > As an example, Apache Spark, still has SparkR (R API),
PySpark
> >> > (Python
> >> > > >> > API), MLLib, GraphX ... as part of its release, and
have the
> same
> >> > > >> > version as Spark core as well as its Scala/Java API.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > 2018-03-10 23:58 GMT-08:00 kellen sunderland <
> >> > > >> kellen.sunderland@gmail.com
> >> > > >> > >:
> >> > > >> > > +1 (non-binding) to what Marco is describing. 
+1
> >> (non-binding) to
> >> > > >> > getting the Scala bindings with the namespace change
into
> Maven.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > The general best practice for SemVer, which is
used by most
> >> > projects
> >> > > >> > that employ SemVer, is to apply SemVer to the public
APIs of
> >> > packages
> >> > > >> that
> >> > > >> > ship with your project.  If you have several independent
APIs
> >> this
> >> > > could
> >> > > >> > mean that they are versioned separately from each other,
and
> from
> >> > the
> >> > > >> > overall project versioning mechanism.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > For example, the .NET Core library ships with a
number of
> >> > binaries,
> >> > > >> each
> >> > > >> > with their own SemVerioned APIs.  They also have a high-level,
> >> easy
> >> > to
> >> > > >> > understand version for the package as a whole:
> >> > > >> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/versions/.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > Nodesource has a good description of this:
> >> > > >> http://nodesource.com/blog/
> >> > > >> > semver-a-primer/
> >> > > >> > > “Semver is a scheme for interface versioning
for the benefit
> of
> >> > > >> > interface consumers, thus if a tool has multiple interfaces,
> >> e.g. an
> >> > > API
> >> > > >> > and a CLI, these interfaces may evolve independent versioning.”
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > SemVer at its core is a communication mechanism
to inform
> >> > developers
> >> > > >> of
> >> > > >> > incompatibilities. In this case the Scala interface
is clearly
> a
> >> > > >> separate
> >> > > >> > entity from the C API.  I.e. changing the Scala namespace
isn’t
> >> > going
> >> > > to
> >> > > >> > break C API users.  It does not communicate anything
useful to
> >> these
> >> > > >> users
> >> > > >> > if we up their major version in response to a Scala
change, it
> >> > simply
> >> > > >> > breaks compatibility.  If we group all interfaces together,
and
> >> > > >> increment
> >> > > >> > whenever any of them has a breaking change we’ll soon
be at
> MXNet
> >> > > >> version
> >> > > >> > 587.  We’ll be forcing our users to check compatibility
and
> >> update
> >> > > their
> >> > > >> > dependency tracking constantly.  The end result is that
our
> users
> >> > will
> >> > > >> stop
> >> > > >> > pulling in new versions of the library.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > What I would propose is that (1) we have a high-level
SemVer
> >> > system
> >> > > >> that
> >> > > >> > tracks our C_API.  This is the ‘MXNet’ version that
we
> generally
> >> > refer
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> > and emphasize for our public releases.  For each API
we have an
> >> > > >> independent
> >> > > >> > versioning system that if we can, we fix to the MXNet
version.
> >> When
> >> > > it
> >> > > >> > makes sense we version these APIs independently.  So
for
> example
> >> we
> >> > > >> could
> >> > > >> > have a MXNet 1.2 release that ships with a 2.0 Scala
API / R
> API.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > In terms of Apache process I think shipping artifacts
with a
> >> > > >> non-Apache
> >> > > >> > namespace is a bigger issue than whatever versioning
> conventions
> >> we
> >> > > >> decide
> >> > > >> > to use.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > -Kellen
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > From: Carin Meier
> >> > > >> > > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 1:41 PM
> >> > > >> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >> > > >> > > Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> >> > > >> > > Subject: Re: Publishing Scala Package/namespace
change
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > +1 as well. I'm actively developing a Clojure package
for
> MXNet
> >> > that
> >> > > >> uses
> >> > > >> > > the jars from the Scala package.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > - Carin
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:44 PM, YiZhi Liu <
> eazhi.liu@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> +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
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > --
> >> > > >> > Yizhi Liu
> >> > > >> > DMLC member
> >> > > >> > Amazon Web Services
> >> > > >> > Vancouver, Canada
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Yizhi Liu
> >> DMLC member
> >> Amazon Web Services
> >> Vancouver, Canada
> >>
> >
> >
>

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