Breaking change to the model JSON file in 1.0.0 release

[Indhu <in...@gmail.com>]

After the 1.0.0 release, we heard from multiple users that the model JSON
file produced by 1.0.0 when a model is saved is not compatible with older
versions of MXNet. Since there was no such change documented in the release
notes, our first thought was that it must be an unintentional change.

We looked at the commit logs and found out that the change was indeed
intentional. Here is the PR that introduced the change:
https://github.com/dmlc/nnvm/pull/152

I think a breaking change like this must have been documented in the
release notes.

1. Given this happened, what actions must we take to make sure such changes
don't happen in the future without being documented in the release notes?
2. For users who ask, I assume we say the change was intentional and there
is no plan to roll it back. Please let me know if that is not correct.

Thanks,
Indu

Re: Breaking change to the model JSON file in 1.0.0 release

[Bhavin Thaker <bh...@gmail.com>]

Marco: we were thinking on the lines of following Semantic versioning but
have not made the proposal to dev@ yet — plan to do that in a week or so.

Bhavin Thaker.

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:04 PM Marco de Abreu <ma...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Are we following semantic versioning https://semver.org/ for MXNet
> releases? If that's the case, 0.x was basically an unstable beta release
> and API changes could be expected at any case.
>
> But in general I totally agree, we should make users aware of the
> incompatibility. If it's just the rename, i propose a short printf if a
> file from an old version gets loaded and in case it contains the old name.
> Automatic conversion could have unknown side effects.
>
> -Marco
>
>
> Am 13.12.2017 12:58 vorm. schrieb "Indhu" <in...@gmail.com>:
>
> After the 1.0.0 release, we heard from multiple users that the model JSON
> file produced by 1.0.0 when a model is saved is not compatible with older
> versions of MXNet. Since there was no such change documented in the release
> notes, our first thought was that it must be an unintentional change.
>
> We looked at the commit logs and found out that the change was indeed
> intentional. Here is the PR that introduced the change:
> https://github.com/dmlc/nnvm/pull/152
>
> I think a breaking change like this must have been documented in the
> release notes.
>
> 1. Given this happened, what actions must we take to make sure such changes
> don't happen in the future without being documented in the release notes?
> 2. For users who ask, I assume we say the change was intentional and there
> is no plan to roll it back. Please let me know if that is not correct.
>
> Thanks,
> Indu
>

Re: Breaking change to the model JSON file in 1.0.0 release

[Marco de Abreu <ma...@googlemail.com>]

Are we following semantic versioning https://semver.org/ for MXNet
releases? If that's the case, 0.x was basically an unstable beta release
and API changes could be expected at any case.

But in general I totally agree, we should make users aware of the
incompatibility. If it's just the rename, i propose a short printf if a
file from an old version gets loaded and in case it contains the old name.
Automatic conversion could have unknown side effects.

-Marco


Am 13.12.2017 12:58 vorm. schrieb "Indhu" <in...@gmail.com>:

After the 1.0.0 release, we heard from multiple users that the model JSON
file produced by 1.0.0 when a model is saved is not compatible with older
versions of MXNet. Since there was no such change documented in the release
notes, our first thought was that it must be an unintentional change.

We looked at the commit logs and found out that the change was indeed
intentional. Here is the PR that introduced the change:
https://github.com/dmlc/nnvm/pull/152

I think a breaking change like this must have been documented in the
release notes.

1. Given this happened, what actions must we take to make sure such changes
don't happen in the future without being documented in the release notes?
2. For users who ask, I assume we say the change was intentional and there
is no plan to roll it back. Please let me know if that is not correct.

Thanks,
Indu