systemml-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niketan Pansare" <npan...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Discussion on GPU backend
Date Wed, 25 May 2016 18:11:26 GMT

Luciano: Yes, there was a bit of confusion and hence wanted to iron things
out to foster collaboration and community feedback on GPU backend.

There are multiple issues:
1. Any work on smaller GPU PRs is dependent on the initial PR getting into
the master (as the initial PR contains the buffer-pool integration logic).
Or at least, everyone agreeing with the design of the initial PR.
2. There is an interest in collaborating on the initial PR itself and I
would like to see collaboration from early on (See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYSTEMML-701 and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYSTEMML-702).
3. The policy of squashing the PR into one commit essentially means only
one person's work will be acknowledged. I am little uneasy on asking people
to collaborate and not acknowledging their work. For example: Mike's
commit/references was lost when the
https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/commit/c334c2c85bc9cbb343e63b5b28ff3a1c5098c7fa
 was delivered.
4. The initial PR is waiting for following items:
- SystemML 0.10 released (as we agreed not to include GPU backend in 0.10
release).
- The unknowns and concerns regarding GPU backend are discussed and
addressed.
- So as to resolve dev dependency issue pointed by Matthias, jcu*.jar needs
to be hosted on local mvn repo. There are few alternative I have already
explored in this direction:
(a) Filed a PR against mavenized jcuda:
https://github.com/MysterionRise/mavenized-jcuda/pull/15
(b) Hosted mvn repo using github mvn plugin. Here is how we can resolve
system scope:
<repositories>
        <repository>
          <id>central</id>
          <url>https://repo1.maven.org/maven2</url>
          <releases>
            <enabled>true</enabled>
          </releases>
        </repository>
        <repository>
            <id>mavenized-jcuda-mvn-repo</id>
            <url>https://raw.github.com/niketanpansare/mavenized-jcuda/mvn-
repo/</url>
            <snapshots>
                <enabled>true</enabled>
                <updatePolicy>always</updatePolicy>
            </snapshots>
        </repository>
    </repositories>
....
<dependencies>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.mystic</groupId>
            <artifactId>mavenized-jcuda</artifactId>
            <version>0.7.5b</version>
            <scope>provided</scope>
        </dependency>
</dependencies>


Thanks,

Niketan Pansare
IBM Almaden Research Center
E-mail: npansar At us.ibm.com
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-npansar



From:	Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com>
To:	dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
Date:	05/25/2016 10:06 AM
Subject:	Re: Discussion on GPU backend



But, from the original question, I was under the impression that creating
and merging multiple small prs were not a possible direction. If that is
ok, then it's regular development practice.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:20 AM, <dusenberrymw@gmail.com> wrote:

> In my opinion, the problem with using a separate branch with longer-term
> work, rather than smaller PRs into the master, is that after several
> commits, say 10 or 20, it becomes much more difficult to rebase without
> running into nasty merge conflicts, especially when those conflicts are
on
> an intermediate commit so one would have to remember what the code looked
> like at that point in time to properly fix the conflicts. To me, this
> invites issues such as duplicated code and slower progress.
>
> --
>
> Mike Dusenberry
> GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw
> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry
>
> Sent from my iPhone.
>
>
> > On May 25, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Berthold Reinwald
<reinwald@us.ibm.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> the discussion is less about (1), (2), or (3). As practiced so far,
(3)
> is
> >> the way to go.
> >>
> >> The question is about (A) or (B). Curious was the Apache suggested
> >> practice is.
> > Apache is key on fostering open collaboration, so specifically about
> > branching, having a SystemML branch that is used for
> > collaboration/experimentation is probably preferable, as it gives
> > visibility to others on the community, enables iterative development
> trough
> > review of small patches, while shield the trunk of issues these
> experiments
> > can cause.
> >
> > I would just recommend to avoid making the branch stale, and keep
> rebasing
> > it with latest master, which will make integration much easier in the
> > future.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>



--
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/



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