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: Following semantic versioning
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2018 19:39:57 GMT
Could we actually just define a mechanism so the libs could register their
ops at runtime?  No linking required?

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018, 8:36 PM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is a good point. What additional blockers would there be for linking
> against a user provided library with custom operators?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Barber, Christopher <
> Christopher.Barber@analog.com> wrote:
>
> > To avoid this kind of problem, you really need to support features that
> > allow MXNet to be extended without having to resort to forking. There is
> > currently no way to add C++ custom operators without forking, and no way
> to
> > share such operators across projects. This creates a perverse incentive
> to
> > try to get changes that may not belong into the main product.
> >
> > ´╗┐On 3/5/18, 6:26 PM, "Marco de Abreu" <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >     Hello,
> >
> >     we recently had a few cases in which it has been attempted to add new
> >     functionality to old branches because a customer of somebodys
> $DAY_JOB
> >     requested it and was unable to switch to the latest release or that
> > certain
> >     feature did not make it into the release. This lead to quite a lot of
> >     discussions and there was no clear standing within the community.
> >
> >     Just to cite semantic versioning:
> >
> >        1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
> >        2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a
> > backwards-compatible
> >        manner, and
> >        3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
> >
> >
> >     We as a community agreed on following this system and I think we
> should
> >     either stick to it or drop it entirely - exceptions to SemVer are
> > usually
> >     discouraged. While I see that adding functionality might be a minor
> > thing,
> >     I don't think that we should educate our users into expecting us to
> >     backport new features. The development happening on the Apache MXNet
> >     repository should not be influenced by something like this;
> especially
> >     considering that whoever supports that customer on their $DAY_JOB can
> >     assist them at creating a fork and cherrypicking that feature. But I
> > don't
> >     see much reason why we're running against best pracitices. One
> > important
> >     thing to note here is that we're not maintaining CI on old branches
> and
> >     neither are we making patch releases - so what do these users do?
> > Compile
> >     off a stale development branch with unvalidated changes?
> >
> >     In my opinion this whole topic is just causing trouble and
> > fragementation
> >     on our end. If a features doesn't make it into the release (for
> > whatever
> >     reason), so be it. But I think we should discuss this topic and
> > emphasize a
> >     no-exceptions-rule to SemVer.
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >     Marco
> >
> >
> >
>

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