mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache MXNet (incubating) Python Docker Images
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:42:13 GMT
Thank you Kellen and Steffen for your comments.
I will wait for some more time in case anyone has a different opinion, else
go ahead with the above recommendation.

Meghna



On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:18 PM Steffen Rochel <steffenrochel@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on Kellen’s comments and suggestion.
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:39 PM kellen sunderland <
> kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This feels like something we should get a little data on before making a
> > decision, but I also don't have a strong opinion.  I would bias towards
> > pushing something that might be imperfect and moving on to develop other
> > improvements for users rather than determining a 'perfect' solution.
> >
> > The questions/tradeoffs I see are (1) should we support multiple python
> > versions in the first place, which requires extra work on our part but
> > supports more users and (2) should we favor forwards or backwards
> > compatibility, i.e. should we prioritize supporting existing users or
> > prioritize making something that won't cause future problems for new and
> > exiting users.
> >
> > The best data I can find with a quick google is the annual Jetbrains
> survey
> > which shows python2 went from 47% in 2017 to 25% in 2018:
> > https://www.jetbrains.com/research/devecosystem-2017/python/
> > https://www.jetbrains.com/research/devecosystem-2018/python/
> >
> > So python2 usage is trending sharply down but is not yet low enough to
> > ignore which I think means we should try and support both on Dockerhub
> (1).
> >
> > I don't see backwards compatibility with existing Docker users is a major
> > concern given these Dockerfiles haven't been supported for a long time.
> I
> > would prioritize forwards compatibility (2) and assume we want to create
> > something that will remain compatible for as long as possible.
> >
> > So I would push both python2 and python3 images, but make python 3.5 the
> > default version, and python2 a version with a postfixed py2 tag in
> > Dockerhub.
> >
> > Thanks to Mu (and others?) for original creating this Dockerhub images, I
> > used to use them and found them very convenient, and to you Meghna for
> > updating them.  I think basing them on the pip packages is also a good
> way
> > to lower maintenance burden and make sure we leverage the great work
> Sheng
> > has done to create those packages.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:52 AM Meghna Baijal <
> meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I am currently in the process of updating the python docker images for
> > > Apache MXNet such that they are built on top of the pip binaries.
> > > Until now these were built to use python 2.7 but with an upcoming PR I
> am
> > > also adding python 3.5 docker images. I would like to know the
> > community’s
> > > preference on whether I should keep the *Python 2.7 Docker image as the
> > > default or should I move to Python 3.5 as the default version*?
> > >
> > > [1] The new python2 dockerfiles and build script can be found here.
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/docker/docker-python
> > > >
> > > [2] The PR for python3 images is in progress and is here.
> > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12791>
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Meghna Baijal
> > >
> >
>

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