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: [VOTE] Disconnect all non-C API's from mxnet versioning
Date Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:10:03 GMT
@Rahul + Roshani, I would hear what you're saying if the user had to worry
about using the native package, but that worry is abstracted from them.
The scala package has a dependency on the native library and includes the
native lib inside the jar.  The correct lib is then bound against at
runtime.  I don't see how a user can use the wrong library or be confused
here unless the instructions on this page are incorrect:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/scala-package

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:02 AM, Rahul Huilgol <rahulhuilgol@gmail.com>
wrote:

> -1 for the frontends having different versions than the backend. It not
> only creates confusion for new users, but also increases the work of
> developers who need to ensure compatibility. All this for a one-time change
> of namespace of a package?
>
> I think we should increase the major version number to make this change?
> Why do we have to 'wait' for 2.0? Who tells us that it's time for a 2.0
> version?
>
> I think expecting a user to look up version numbers on the website and
> ensure compatibility as suggested above, is not a simple task. Most users
> might not even know how the backend and frontend integrate. They might not
> even know that there is a C API which powers the frontends. Even knowing
> how to look up documentation for a particular version of MXNet is a
> non-trivial task right now. (And there are pages in a version's
> documentation which link to a file in another version). We should avoid
> introducing more complexity into the process. As developers we tend to
> overlook the important aspect of user experience. I think we should take a
> step back and look at this from the perspective of a user, not from that of
> a developer who works closely with MXNet.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Roshani Nagmote <
> roshaninagmote2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > -1 for different versioning.
> >
> > I feel its just added confusion for users.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:35 PM, YiZhi Liu <eazhi.liu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Agree.
> > >
> > > And my reply to Marco's point,
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > And you mentioned the CPP package as an example.
> > > > During analysis, we figured that a re-engineering of that API would
> be
> > > more appropriate and easier maintainable.
> > > I cannot agree as an engineer. Why not keep old API and add new ones?
> > > Just like in c_api.h, we added xxxEx while did not remove xxx, which
> > > keeps APIs compatible.
> > >
> > > > I think it is safe to say that the other APIs have not been
> maintained
> > > as actively as our Python/Gluon API.
> > > Are you saying, if an API is maintained actively and is widely used,
> > > then it should be versioned together with MXNet Core?
> > > Interesting, maybe instead we should have another discussion to decide
> > > whether to remove some of the 'inactive' frontend bindings from the
> > > repo.
> > >
> > > > We have to do #3 anyways, so it is just about having a different
> number
> > > set as version string.
> > > A release with 6 different versions and 5 mappings?
> > >
> > > > I really don't see an issue in #1 - it's a simple lookup that could
> be
> > > done on our website.
> > > Please be careful to say 'simple', each time we introduce an
> > > additional step, we lose a number of our potential users.
> > > And as I describe in my #5. Imagine an inverse situation. When someone
> > > has a model trained by gluon 1.6.0, he want to deploy it to JVM, what
> > > Scala API version should he use? 1.6.0? No. And which R package
> > > version he should use? It is still different from either Gluon version
> > > or Scala API version. What a nightmare.
> > >
> > > 2018-03-12 14:11 GMT-07:00 Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>:
> > > > 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
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yizhi Liu
> > > DMLC member
> > > Amazon Web Services
> > > Vancouver, Canada
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rahul Huilgol
>

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