mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2018 03:28:57 GMT
btw, there are no vetoes on package releases:

VOTES ON PACKAGE RELEASES
<https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes>

Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval
<https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval> -- i.e.
at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there
must be more positive than negative votes.Releases may not be vetoed. Generally
the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious
problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual
serving as release manager. The specifics of the process may vary from
project to project, but the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule is
universal.

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 7:12 PM Sheng Zha <szha.pvg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for sharing your opinions, Thomas. Your recognition and respect of
> people's efforts on preparing the release candidate are certainly
> appreciated.
>
> Now that the vote is set to fail thanks to the veto, there will be plenty
> of opportunities to include those bug fixes, including the one Zhi
> mentioned [1], which was already merged in the master and yet chose not to
> block this release with [2]. I will be happy to work with Roshani to
> prepare another release candidate once ready.
>
> -sz
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f02e952bec22c82cb00a6741390a78f55373311c97464997bb455a6c@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> [2]
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/85d3fcabb3437ba7f1af455cf69aa13eb3afd1ea1d1f6f891e9c339c@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:02 PM Thomas DELTEIL <thomas.delteil1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > -0
> > (non-binding)
> >
> > If I may add some nuancing plus a personal data point as one of the users
> > commenting in the bug report in question:
> >
> > - Performance vs. Basic functionality => I don't think high performance
> > use-cases and basic functionality are two obviously opposed concepts and
> > see no contradiction in Hagay's and Sandeep's statements.
> > Float16 support is feature of MXNet that provides more than twice the
> > performance of Float32 on supported platforms, hence the high performance
> > use-case. The bug is that the basic functionality of reloading a saved
> > float16 models is currently broken.
> >
> > - This bug vs Other bugs => Contrary the vast majority of the 140 open
> bugs
> > that are mentioned above, I would put to Sandeep's credit that this one
> bug
> > has a PR open that provides a fix for it. This would make it a better
> > candidate to get included in this release than a bug that has no fix
> ready
> > for it.
> >
> > - Personal datapoint: I recently did some experimentation with float16
> [1]
> > and actually coincidentally just published a video on optimizing
> > performance for Gluon. Float16 conversion is one of the most, if not the
> > most effective way to get performance out of MXNet [2]. I believe there
> is
> > a lot of value in publicizing more its use and hence making sure at least
> > the basic support for normal use-cases is present.
> >
> > Of course this needs to be balanced with the overhead of preparing a new
> > release candidate once the fixed is reviewed and merged, which seems to
> be
> > a lengthy and complex process in its own right, and the delay with
> > providing the other features present in 1.3 for users that are not
> running
> > off the nightly builds.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/ThomasDelteil/PerformanceTricksMXNetGluon
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqo7FPftNyo&t=0s&list=PLkEvNnRk8uVk6U515Pj-jHQUxFC4eDi3m
> >
> > Le mar. 4 sept. 2018 à 17:11, Sheng Zha <szha.pvg@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > Sandeep,
> > >
> > > Thanks for explaining your veto. We have open bugs that impacted a lot
> > more
> > > than just 3 customers, just by referring to the number of commenters on
> > the
> > > issue [1].
> > >
> > > You said that this is for "high performance use cases", which
> contradicts
> > > with Hagay's assement that this is "basic functionality broken". Given
> > that
> > > this is for advanced use cases of using half-precision training, why is
> > it
> > > so much more important than any other open bug reports, that for this
> > > specific bug fix, we have to delay the access of regular users to the
> new
> > > MXNet 1.3 release by at least another week?
> > >
> > > Honestly, I'm concerned that your vote is biased by Amazon involvement,
> > > given that you quoted Amazon Rekognition.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABug+sort%3Acomments-desc
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:51 PM sandeep krishnamurthy <
> > > sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My initial vote of “-0” was due to lack of info from a user who had
> > said,
> > > > he overcame this issue for FP16 model.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, suggested workaround [1] for the issue is not straight
> forward
> > > and
> > > > generally usable for all users. Also, issue is not simple and
> isolated
> > to
> > > > be listed in the Release Notes as known issue with a workaround.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Changing my vote to: "-1 (binding)" owing to the user impact [3]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > @Sheng:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Agreed, bug existed from long time. However, FP16 and such
> > > optimizations
> > > > were added later on. Followed by users [2] using this feature for
> high
> > > > performance use cases. It is not ok to measure severity of the bug
> > based
> > > on
> > > > its past existence, rather we can see who is impacted now and is it a
> > > small
> > > > subset with a simple workaround or large user impacting issue.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Agreed bug was reported 7/21. However, I became aware of this
> issue
> > on
> > > > 08/29 and submitted the fix on 08/30. Also, I did bring this to the
> > > notice
> > > > of community, you and 1.3 release manager (Roshani) on the RC0
> proposal
> > > > thread. Also, I would focus on the issue and user impact than who
> > > > identified and who is fixing the issue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Based on my discussion with 2 users, I think it is a important
> feature
> > > for
> > > > them to see in Apache MXNet v1.3.0.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Sandeep
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] Workaround used by the user.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > net_fp16 = mx.gluon.SymbolBlock.imports('resnet34_fp16-symbol.json',
> > > > ['data'])
> > > >
> > > > params_fp16 = mx.nd.load('resnet34_fp16-0000.params')
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > for k, v in params_fp16.items():
> > > >
> > > >     new_key = k.split(':')[1]
> > > >
> > > >     net_fp16.collect_params()[new_key].cast(v.dtype)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > net_fp16.collect_params().load('resnet34_fp16-0000.params', ctx)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [2] Amazon Rekognition
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [3] User story: Train a model -> Cast it to FP16 -> Save the model
->
> > > Load
> > > > back the model does not work. They have to cast every parameter with
> a
> > > > workaround mentioned above [1].
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:14 PM Hagay Lupesko <lupesko@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Sheng,
> > > > >
> > > > > Addressing your questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > - "why this specific bug is more important than all the other known
> > > bugs,
> > > > > that this becomes a release blocker"
> > > > > I do not consider it to be more or less important than other fixes.
> > It
> > > > can
> > > > > be fixed and included in the release alongside the rest of the
> > release
> > > > > content, right?
> > > > > From the description of the issue it seems important since it is
> > > blocking
> > > > > users from loading models that were previously trained and saved.
> > There
> > > > is
> > > > > nothing stopping the community from including this fix into 1.3.0,
> > > > > alongside the rest of the features and fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > - "The bug exists since SymbolBlock was introduced a year ago and
> has
> > > > > survived at least three releases, so this is not a regression."
> > > > > I do not think I said it is a regression. However, the fact a bug
> > > existed
> > > > > before, does not mean it is OK to release it rather than fix it.
> > > > >
> > > > > - "Timeline-wise, this bug was reported on 7/21, but was not
> reported
> > > as
> > > > > release-blocker in the release discussion thread until 8/31 [1].
> > > Neither
> > > > > its reporting as release-blocker nor its fix made it for the 8/3
> code
> > > > > freeze."
> > > > > You are right, would have been better to have this identified and
> > fixed
> > > > > earlier and included before code freeze.
> > > > >
> > > > > - "The PR is still not ready yet as it doesn't have approval."
> > > > > I think it is waiting for your review.
> > > > >
> > > > > - "it would be great if you could provide some additional reasoning
> > > > besides
> > > > > "X mentions the issue" or "fix was done by X""
> > > > > I have. Repeating what I wrote in my previous email for clarity:
> > Basic
> > > > > functionality broken: loading a model (albeit one that that was
> saved
> > > as
> > > > > non FP32)
> > > > >
> > > > > So, yes - this issue seems to have been out there for a while,
> > somehow
> > > > went
> > > > > under the radar... but I think the key question is whether this
> > blocks
> > > a
> > > > > basic functionality in MXNet. I believe so, hence my -1 vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hagay
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 1:19 PM Sheng Zha <szha.pvg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Hagay and Sandeep,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you help us understand why this specific bug is more
> > important
> > > > than
> > > > > > all the other known bugs, that this becomes a release blocker?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some facts to consider:
> > > > > > - The bug exists since SymbolBlock was introduced a year ago
and
> > has
> > > > > > survived at least three releases, so this is not a regression.
> > > > > > - Timeline-wise, this bug was reported on 7/21, but was not
> > reported
> > > as
> > > > > > release-blocker in the release discussion thread until 8/31
[1].
> > > > Neither
> > > > > > its reporting as release-blocker nor its fix made it for the
8/3
> > code
> > > > > > freeze.
> > > > > > - The PR is still not ready yet as it doesn't have approval.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hagay, it would be great if you could provide some additional
> > > reasoning
> > > > > > besides "X mentions the issue" or "fix was done by X". Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -sz
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d1ed611f98c20d5d85c294b0c07c8bdebca13a209cf66a3872c9123e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:39 PM Hagay Lupesko <lupesko@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sandeep mentions the issue of an error when user tries
to load
> > > model
> > > > > > params
> > > > > > > trained/saved as FP16.
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11849
> > > > > > > The fix was done by Sandeep:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12412 and
is
> > ready
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > cherry picked into the release branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This seems like a release blocker to me:
> > > > > > > - Basic functionality broken: loading a model (albeit one
that
> > that
> > > > was
> > > > > > > saved as non FP32)
> > > > > > > - Reported by 3 users (wgchang@, nicklhy@ and ThomasDelteil@)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -1 (non binding)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hagay
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:01 PM sandeep krishnamurthy <
> > > > > > > sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "- 0"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe the bug #11849
> > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11849>,
> > unable
> > > > to
> > > > > > > import
> > > > > > > > non-fp32 models into Gluon, fixed in this PR #12412
> > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12412>
is
> > > > important
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > users. I would rather pick this fix in this release
than
> plan a
> > > > minor
> > > > > > > > release later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Sandeep
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 2:34 PM Philip Cho <
> > > > > chohyu01@cs.washington.edu>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually, the command "git clone --recursive
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet -b
1.3.0.rc0"
> > works
> > > > fine
> > > > > > > now,
> > > > > > > > > never mind.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM Philip Cho <
> > > > > > chohyu01@cs.washington.edu>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, MXNet was depending on a
branch of TVM
> that
> > is
> > > > now
> > > > > > > > > deleted.
> > > > > > > > > > We will have to merge #12448
> > > > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12448>
> > > before
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Background: See dmlc/tvm#1394 <
> > > > > > > https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/issues/1394
> > > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Philip.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:26 AM Carin Meier
<
> > > > carinmeier@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Checked out the tag, built and tested
the Clojure
> package.
> > > +1
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:59 PM Roshani
Nagmote <
> > > > > > > > > >> roshaninagmote2@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > I would like to propose a vote
to release Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > (incubating)
> > > > > > > > > >> version
> > > > > > > > > >> > 1.3.0.RC0. Voting will start now
(Friday, Aug 31st)
> and
> > > end
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 7:00
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > >> > PDT, Wednesday, Sept 5th.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Link to release notes:
> > > > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Link to release candidate 1.3.0.rc0:
> > > > > > > > > >> > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.3.0.rc
> > > > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.3.0.rc0
> > > > > > > > >0*
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > View this page, click on "Build
from Source", and use
> > the
> > > > > source
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> > obtained from 1.3.0.rc0 tag:
> > > > > > > > > >> > https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/install/index.html
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Please remember to TEST first before
voting
> accordingly:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > +1 = approve
> > > > > > > > > >> > +0 = no opinion
> > > > > > > > > >> > -1 = disapprove (provide reason)
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > Roshani
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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