mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Haibin Lin <haibin.lin....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2018 23:57:12 GMT
+1 built from source and passes dist_sync_kvstore test on Ubuntu.

Best,
Haibin

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:32 PM Indhu <indhubharathi@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> The release candidate looks good. I'm able to build and run basic models.
>
> One the FP16 issue:
>
> Like others have pointed out, releases on expensive in terms of time and
> effort. There needs to be a high and more objective bar on what qualifies
> as a release blocker to make sure we are not setting precedence for a lot
> of release blockers in future.
>
> I think a release blocker is justified only if there is a serious bug
> discovered in one of the features included in the release or if there is a
> regression. Given FP16 supports is not a new feature claimed in this
> release and this is not a regression in this release candidate, I'm
> inclined to release this candidate and include the FP16 fix in a subsequent
> release.
>
> Thanks,
> Indu
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:21 AM Aaron Markham <aaron.s.markham@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 0 (non-binding) If we have a problem that blocks users, and a solution in
> > hand... then we should fix it, but not at the expense of starting the
> > release cycle again just for one fix. Users can cherry pick or build from
> > master if they want the fix right away, right? I'd change my mind to -1
> if
> > this wasn't the case, with good reason, and if the user impact was
> critical
> > to adoption or risks abandonment.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:57 AM Roshani Nagmote <
> roshaninagmote2@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I believe everyone here is working hard to make MXNet a better
> framework
> > > for users. It's completely okay to have different opinions, we can
> decide
> > > together if this issue is a blocker or not after voting time is over.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned before, voting will end at 7 pm today. So there is still
> > > time to test the release. If there are any other issues anyone finds, I
> > > will be happy to start the process again and work on RC1. For now, I
> want
> > > to encourage everyone to utilize this time and vote. :)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roshani
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:35 PM sandeep krishnamurthy <
> > > sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >    1. As a Apache MXNet community member, I raised the concern of
> > broken
> > > >    functionality for the user. I explained and provided the data
> points
> > > on
> > > > the
> > > >    issue, workaround and why I think it is important. If after all
> > this,
> > > > you
> > > >    think my vote is biased on my employer just because a user I
> quoted
> > is
> > > > from
> > > >    Amazon, this is more concerning to me on my voting abilities.
> > > >    2. My -1 no where undermines the huge amount of effort that goes
> > > behind
> > > >    the scene for a release to happen. Great respect and recognition
> for
> > > >    everyone involved in all the releases of MXNet in the past and
> > this. I
> > > >    voted on my judgement of what may be good for the users of MXNet.
> > > >    3. As pointed by Naveen & Chris, -1 are NOT veto. Feel free to
> > decide
> > > >    and progress on the release as we already have >3 +1 in this
> thread.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Sandeep
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:29 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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