You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mxnet.apache.org by Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com> on 2019/04/06 01:57:15 UTC
assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Hi
Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
Would anybody oppose this change?
Thanks and have a nice weekend.
Pedro.
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>.
"Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in
sense of performance, portability, or anything else?"
It would improve the contributor experience in that if we find a bug which
requires fixes in both repos, we won't have to coordinate 2 PRs. It would
also make compilation more straightforward (as others have mentioned).
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:56 AM Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
> Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just
> install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS. This
> could make Windows setup easier.
> Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769.
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in
> > sense of performance, portability, or anything else?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries
> (
> > > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > > without any additional gains.
> > >
> > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> > > mxnet codebase.
> > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start
> the
> > > migrating process.
> > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl
> > code
> > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > >
> > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> > > discussions
> > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform
> > > linear
> > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> > > xtensor(
> > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate
> > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Anirudh
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
> cumbersome
> > as
> > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other
> developers
> > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to
> > go
> > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Junru Shao <ju...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Kellen for the explanation, +1 for this!
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:16 PM Zhao, Patric <pa...@intel.com> wrote:
> Agree.
>
> Recently, we (Tao, Shufan, Pengxin) are trying to integrate the Intel MKL
> math functions into mshadow and MXNet.
> We have to go through two repos and make lots of tradeoff between them.
> If we can move mshadow into MXNet, it will be more flexible to redesign
> and refactor parts of legacy code.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhasheng@apache.org]
> > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
> >
> > mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inherent in
> > mshadow code base that requires OpenBLAS over MKL. The linked issue
> > #11769 seems to be more of a build logic issue.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On 2019/04/07 18:56:43, Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > +1
> > > Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just
> > > install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS.
> > > This could make Windows setup easier.
> > > Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for
> > > > customers in sense of performance, portability, or anything else?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen
> > > > <tq...@cs.washington.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other
> > > > > libraries ( eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the
> > > > > codebase complexity without any additional gains.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it
> > > > > into mxnet codebase.
> > > > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend
> > > > > starting a community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week,
> > > > > before we start the migrating process.
> > > > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of
> > > > > MXNet.jl
> > > > code
> > > > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tianqi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya
> > > > > > <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> > > > > discussions
> > > > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to
> > > > > > > perform
> > > > > linear
> > > > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> > > > > xtensor(
> > > > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a
> > > > > > > candidate
> > > > here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Anirudh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
> > > > > > > > cumbersome
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other
> > > > > > > > developers believe that it would be good to assimilate this
> > > > > > > > code in the repository for ease of contribution and changes
> > > > > > > > without having to
> > > > go
> > > > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com>.
There's a flag MSHADOW_STAND_ALONE which supports gemm but not all of
them, and looks like an untested codepath. From what I have seen I
don't think we use this from MXNet, hence the need for a BLAS
implementation.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:16 PM Zhao, Patric <pa...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Agree.
>
> Recently, we (Tao, Shufan, Pengxin) are trying to integrate the Intel MKL math functions into mshadow and MXNet.
> We have to go through two repos and make lots of tradeoff between them.
> If we can move mshadow into MXNet, it will be more flexible to redesign and refactor parts of legacy code.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhasheng@apache.org]
> > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
> >
> > mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inherent in
> > mshadow code base that requires OpenBLAS over MKL. The linked issue
> > #11769 seems to be more of a build logic issue.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On 2019/04/07 18:56:43, Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > +1
> > > Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just
> > > install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS.
> > > This could make Windows setup easier.
> > > Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for
> > > > customers in sense of performance, portability, or anything else?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen
> > > > <tq...@cs.washington.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other
> > > > > libraries ( eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the
> > > > > codebase complexity without any additional gains.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it
> > > > > into mxnet codebase.
> > > > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend
> > > > > starting a community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week,
> > > > > before we start the migrating process.
> > > > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of
> > > > > MXNet.jl
> > > > code
> > > > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tianqi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya
> > > > > > <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> > > > > discussions
> > > > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to
> > > > > > > perform
> > > > > linear
> > > > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> > > > > xtensor(
> > > > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a
> > > > > > > candidate
> > > > here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Anirudh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
> > > > > > > > cumbersome
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other
> > > > > > > > developers believe that it would be good to assimilate this
> > > > > > > > code in the repository for ease of contribution and changes
> > > > > > > > without having to
> > > > go
> > > > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
RE: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by "Zhao, Patric" <pa...@intel.com>.
Agree.
Recently, we (Tao, Shufan, Pengxin) are trying to integrate the Intel MKL math functions into mshadow and MXNet.
We have to go through two repos and make lots of tradeoff between them.
If we can move mshadow into MXNet, it will be more flexible to redesign and refactor parts of legacy code.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhasheng@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
>
> mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inherent in
> mshadow code base that requires OpenBLAS over MKL. The linked issue
> #11769 seems to be more of a build logic issue.
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/04/07 18:56:43, Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > +1
> > Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just
> > install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS.
> > This could make Windows setup easier.
> > Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for
> > > customers in sense of performance, portability, or anything else?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen
> > > <tq...@cs.washington.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other
> > > > libraries ( eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the
> > > > codebase complexity without any additional gains.
> > > >
> > > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it
> > > > into mxnet codebase.
> > > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend
> > > > starting a community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week,
> > > > before we start the migrating process.
> > > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of
> > > > MXNet.jl
> > > code
> > > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > > >
> > > > Tianqi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya
> > > > > <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> > > > discussions
> > > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to
> > > > > > perform
> > > > linear
> > > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> > > > xtensor(
> > > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a
> > > > > > candidate
> > > here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Anirudh
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
> > > > > > > cumbersome
> > > as
> > > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other
> > > > > > > developers believe that it would be good to assimilate this
> > > > > > > code in the repository for ease of contribution and changes
> > > > > > > without having to
> > > go
> > > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org>.
mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inherent in mshadow code base that requires OpenBLAS over MKL. The linked issue #11769 seems to be more of a build logic issue.
-sz
On 2019/04/07 18:56:43, Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
> Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just
> install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS. This
> could make Windows setup easier.
> Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769.
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in
> > sense of performance, portability, or anything else?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
> > > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > > without any additional gains.
> > >
> > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> > > mxnet codebase.
> > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
> > > migrating process.
> > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl
> > code
> > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > >
> > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> > > discussions
> > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform
> > > linear
> > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> > > xtensor(
> > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate
> > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Anirudh
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome
> > as
> > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to
> > go
> > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>.
+1
Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just
install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS. This
could make Windows setup easier.
Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in
> sense of performance, portability, or anything else?
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
> > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > without any additional gains.
> >
> > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> > mxnet codebase.
> > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
> > migrating process.
> > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl
> code
> > base to preserve the contribution history.
> >
> > Tianqi
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > >
> > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> > discussions
> > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > >
> > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform
> > linear
> > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> > xtensor(
> > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate
> here.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Anirudh
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome
> as
> > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to
> go
> > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedro.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Junru Shao <ju...@gmail.com>.
Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for customers in
sense of performance, portability, or anything else?
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
> eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> without any additional gains.
>
> Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> mxnet codebase.
> To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
> migrating process.
> Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code
> base to preserve the contribution history.
>
> Tianqi
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pedro,
> > >
> > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> discussions
> > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > >
> > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform
> linear
> > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> xtensor(
> > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > >
> > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > >
> > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > >
> > > > Pedro.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sheng.
Do you need some help with this? Do we plan to have this for 1.5?
Pedro.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:26 PM Pedro Larroy
<pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Great to read.
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:19 PM Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> > > On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
> > > > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > > > without any additional gains.
> > > >
> > > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> > > > mxnet codebase.
> > > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> > > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
> > > > migrating process.
> > > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code
> > > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > > >
> > > > Tianqi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
> > > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
> > > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
> > > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Anirudh
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> > > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> > > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com>.
Thanks. Great to read.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:19 PM Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
> > > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > > without any additional gains.
> > >
> > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> > > mxnet codebase.
> > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
> > > migrating process.
> > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code
> > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > >
> > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
> > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
> > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
> > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Anirudh
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Thanks for clarifying. All contributors who made more than 10 commits to msahdow before are committers of MXNet, so their ICLAs should already be on file: tqchen, bingxu, eric.xie, sxjscience, mli, yajiedesign [1]. If you think this is OK, one of the mentors or I can start the notification.
What about the other 60 contributors? More than 10 commits is not a line I would feel comfortable with. You need to be able to account for the IP provenance of every line of code, just like in your initial code donation. It would probably be best to make a list all contributors and if they have an ICLA or not. Did the mshadow project use ICLAs? If so that may also help.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <sz...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for clarifying. All contributors who made more than 10 commits to
msahdow before are committers of MXNet, so their ICLAs should already be on
file: tqchen, bingxu, eric.xie, sxjscience, mli, yajiedesign [1]. If you
think this is OK, one of the mentors or I can start the notification.
Regards,
Sheng
[1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/graphs/contributors
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:37 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Thank you, Justin. Though I’m still uncertain about what the definition
> of IP clearance process is.
>
> The bit you quoted there is for an initial code base, it the second part
> of that document you need to look at.
>
> In short as well as the SGA you need to get signed ICLA from all of the
> contributors to the code base. It might be OK to just get the major ones
> depending on the type of contributions. You then need to notify the
> incubator of the IP clearance and see if they have any questions about it.
>
> Here’s an example:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r750880f7295c1a8c31c99e7a40f3466c177bd714254d0c98a506dede%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Thank you, Justin. Though I’m still uncertain about what the definition of IP clearance process is.
The bit you quoted there is for an initial code base, it the second part of that document you need to look at.
In short as well as the SGA you need to get signed ICLA from all of the contributors to the code base. It might be OK to just get the major ones depending on the type of contributions. You then need to notify the incubator of the IP clearance and see if they have any questions about it.
Here’s an example:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r750880f7295c1a8c31c99e7a40f3466c177bd714254d0c98a506dede%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Thanks,
Justin
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <sz...@gmail.com>.
Thank you, Justin. Though I’m still uncertain about what the definition of IP clearance process is, I found the following paragraphs that seem relevant. Sounds like we need three votes from our mentors here for this acceptance. If that’s the case, I can start a vote on it.
Regards,
Sheng
> The Incubator PMC must approve the clearance. This indicates that the project is happy to receive the code donated. When a new podling is created, this is done by the identification of existing codebases in the proposal. Otherwise, the IPMC delegates this decision to the PPMC.
> As usual, three binding votes are required. So, Mentors need to be involved in IP clearance for podlings. If too few binding VOTEs are posted on list, the VOTE will need to be posted to the general list for ratification.
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 6:31 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> See also:
> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
See also:
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html
Thanks,
Justin
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> Yes and yes. I filed the software grant and received confirmation from secretary@.
As well as the software grant the incline code base needs to go through IP clearance. See [1] option 2.
IP clearance involves making sure all all contributors have signed ICLAs and there are no license or other IP issues and getting IP clearance from the incubator. [2]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/legal.html#incoming-code
2. https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <sz...@gmail.com>.
Hi Justin,
Yes and yes. I filed the software grant and received confirmation from secretary@.
I’m not sure if I should be updating the page, and if so, how.
Regards,
Sheng
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 1:59 AM, Justin Mclean <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Has the IP clearance process been followed? I don't see it listed on this page [1]
>
> Does the current release being voted on contain this code?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Justin Mclean <jm...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Has the IP clearance process been followed? I don't see it listed on this page [1]
Does the current release being voted on contain this code?
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <sz...@gmail.com>.
I found the template in the link Marco provided and filed the software
grant to the secretary.
Sheng
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:09 AM Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes, to secretary@. Do you need a template?
>
> Thanks Sheng
>
> Mike
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sheng Zha <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Thanks for offering help. I can represent the code donors and file the
> software grant. Should the filing go to secretary@?
> >
> > Sheng
> >
> > > On Jul 5, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this being tracked in a ticket anywhere? What help can I offer?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:44 PM Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.abreu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Sheng,
> > >>
> > >> since this is a "large one off code contribution", the policy [1]
> states
> > >> that they should be brought in through a software grant.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Marco
> > >>
> > >> [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/legal.html
> > >>
> > >>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:41 PM Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> To mentors,
> > >>>
> > >>> Do we the PPMC need to fill out IP clearance for this code donation?
> > >>>
> > >>> -sz
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2019/04/24 21:19:49, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>> The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I
> > >>> will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -sz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>>> I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet
> > >>> code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating
> the
> > >>> mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -sz
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other
> > >>> libraries (
> > >>>>>> eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase
> complexity
> > >>>>>> without any additional gains.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it
> > >>> into
> > >>>>>> mxnet codebase.
> > >>>>>> To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend
> > >>> starting a
> > >>>>>> community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we
> > >>> start the
> > >>>>>> migrating process.
> > >>>>>> Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of
> > >>> MXNet.jl code
> > >>>>>> base to preserve the contribution history.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Tianqi
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > >>>>>> <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <
> > >>> anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi Pedro,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> > >>> discussions
> > >>>>>>>> about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to
> > >>> perform linear
> > >>>>>>>> algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> > >>> xtensor(
> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate
> > >>> here.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>>> Anirudh
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > >>>>>>> pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
> > >>> cumbersome as
> > >>>>>>>>> it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > >>>>>>>>> independent tests / library functionality, me and other
> > >>> developers
> > >>>>>>>>> believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > >>>>>>>>> repository for ease of contribution and changes without having
> > >>> to go
> > >>>>>>>>> trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Would anybody oppose this change?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Pedro.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org>.
Yes, to secretary@. Do you need a template?
Thanks Sheng
Mike
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sheng Zha <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for offering help. I can represent the code donors and file the software grant. Should the filing go to secretary@?
>
> Sheng
>
> > On Jul 5, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Is this being tracked in a ticket anywhere? What help can I offer?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:44 PM Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Sheng,
> >>
> >> since this is a "large one off code contribution", the policy [1] states
> >> that they should be brought in through a software grant.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Marco
> >>
> >> [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/legal.html
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:41 PM Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> To mentors,
> >>>
> >>> Do we the PPMC need to fill out IP clearance for this code donation?
> >>>
> >>> -sz
> >>>
> >>> On 2019/04/24 21:19:49, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I
> >>> will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
> >>>>
> >>>> -sz
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>> I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet
> >>> code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the
> >>> mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -sz
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>> Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other
> >>> libraries (
> >>>>>> eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> >>>>>> without any additional gains.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it
> >>> into
> >>>>>> mxnet codebase.
> >>>>>> To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend
> >>> starting a
> >>>>>> community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we
> >>> start the
> >>>>>> migrating process.
> >>>>>> Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of
> >>> MXNet.jl code
> >>>>>> base to preserve the contribution history.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tianqi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> >>>>>> <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <
> >>> anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Pedro,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> >>> discussions
> >>>>>>>> about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to
> >>> perform linear
> >>>>>>>> algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> >>> xtensor(
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate
> >>> here.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>> Anirudh
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> >>>>>>> pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
> >>> cumbersome as
> >>>>>>>>> it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> >>>>>>>>> independent tests / library functionality, me and other
> >>> developers
> >>>>>>>>> believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> >>>>>>>>> repository for ease of contribution and changes without having
> >>> to go
> >>>>>>>>> trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Would anybody oppose this change?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Pedro.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <sz...@gmail.com>.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for offering help. I can represent the code donors and file the software grant. Should the filing go to secretary@?
Sheng
> On Jul 5, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Is this being tracked in a ticket anywhere? What help can I offer?
>
> Mike
>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:44 PM Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sheng,
>>
>> since this is a "large one off code contribution", the policy [1] states
>> that they should be brought in through a software grant.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Marco
>>
>> [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/legal.html
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:41 PM Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> To mentors,
>>>
>>> Do we the PPMC need to fill out IP clearance for this code donation?
>>>
>>> -sz
>>>
>>> On 2019/04/24 21:19:49, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I
>>> will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
>>>>
>>>> -sz
>>>>
>>>> On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet
>>> code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the
>>> mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
>>>>>
>>>>> -sz
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other
>>> libraries (
>>>>>> eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
>>>>>> without any additional gains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it
>>> into
>>>>>> mxnet codebase.
>>>>>> To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend
>>> starting a
>>>>>> community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we
>>> start the
>>>>>> migrating process.
>>>>>> Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of
>>> MXNet.jl code
>>>>>> base to preserve the contribution history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tianqi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
>>>>>> <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <
>>> anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Pedro,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
>>> discussions
>>>>>>>> about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to
>>> perform linear
>>>>>>>> algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
>>> xtensor(
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate
>>> here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> Anirudh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
>>>>>>> pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
>>> cumbersome as
>>>>>>>>> it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
>>>>>>>>> independent tests / library functionality, me and other
>>> developers
>>>>>>>>> believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
>>>>>>>>> repository for ease of contribution and changes without having
>>> to go
>>>>>>>>> trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would anybody oppose this change?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks and have a nice weekend.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pedro.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org>.
Is this being tracked in a ticket anywhere? What help can I offer?
Mike
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:44 PM Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Sheng,
>
> since this is a "large one off code contribution", the policy [1] states
> that they should be brought in through a software grant.
>
> Best regards,
> Marco
>
> [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/legal.html
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:41 PM Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > To mentors,
> >
> > Do we the PPMC need to fill out IP clearance for this code donation?
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On 2019/04/24 21:19:49, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I
> > will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> > > On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet
> > code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the
> > mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
> > > >
> > > > -sz
> > > >
> > > > On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other
> > libraries (
> > > > > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > > > > without any additional gains.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it
> > into
> > > > > mxnet codebase.
> > > > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend
> > starting a
> > > > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we
> > start the
> > > > > migrating process.
> > > > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of
> > MXNet.jl code
> > > > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tianqi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <
> > anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> > discussions
> > > > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to
> > perform linear
> > > > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> > xtensor(
> > > > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate
> > here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Anirudh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
> > cumbersome as
> > > > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other
> > developers
> > > > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having
> > to go
> > > > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sheng,
since this is a "large one off code contribution", the policy [1] states
that they should be brought in through a software grant.
Best regards,
Marco
[1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/legal.html
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:41 PM Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> To mentors,
>
> Do we the PPMC need to fill out IP clearance for this code donation?
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/04/24 21:19:49, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I
> will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet
> code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the
> mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> > > On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other
> libraries (
> > > > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > > > without any additional gains.
> > > >
> > > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it
> into
> > > > mxnet codebase.
> > > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend
> starting a
> > > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we
> start the
> > > > migrating process.
> > > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of
> MXNet.jl code
> > > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > > >
> > > > Tianqi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <
> anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been
> discussions
> > > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to
> perform linear
> > > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think
> xtensor(
> > > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate
> here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Anirudh
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is
> cumbersome as
> > > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other
> developers
> > > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having
> to go
> > > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org>.
To mentors,
Do we the PPMC need to fill out IP clearance for this code donation?
-sz
On 2019/04/24 21:19:49, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
> > > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > > without any additional gains.
> > >
> > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> > > mxnet codebase.
> > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> > > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
> > > migrating process.
> > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code
> > > base to preserve the contribution history.
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > >
> > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
> > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
> > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
> > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Anirudh
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org>.
The community has agreed to donate mshadow to the mxnet code base. I will start the migration and build logic changes soon.
-sz
On 2019/04/07 21:47:39, Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
>
> [1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
> > eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> > without any additional gains.
> >
> > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> > mxnet codebase.
> > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> > community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
> > migrating process.
> > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code
> > base to preserve the contribution history.
> >
> > Tianqi
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> > <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > >
> > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
> > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > > >
> > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
> > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
> > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Anirudh
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedro.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Sheng Zha <zh...@apache.org>.
I agree it would make development easier to donate mshadow to mxnet code base, since mshadow is only used in MXNet. I support donating the mshadow code to mxnet and I started an RFC for this in mshadow [1].
[1] https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/issues/373
-sz
On 2019/04/06 04:38:19, Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
> eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
> without any additional gains.
>
> Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
> mxnet codebase.
> To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
> community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
> migrating process.
> Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code
> base to preserve the contribution history.
>
> Tianqi
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
> <al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pedro,
> > >
> > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
> > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> > >
> > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
> > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
> > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > > >
> > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > > >
> > > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > > >
> > > > Pedro.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu>.
Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other libraries (
eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the codebase complexity
without any additional gains.
Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it into
mxnet codebase.
To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend starting a
community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, before we start the
migrating process.
Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of MXNet.jl code
base to preserve the contribution history.
Tianqi
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque
<al...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote:
> Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pedro,
> >
> > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
> > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
> >
> > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
> > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
> > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
> >
> > -
> > Anirudh
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <
> pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> > >
> > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> > >
> > > Would anybody oppose this change?
> > >
> > > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> > >
> > > Pedro.
> > >
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Alfredo Luque <al...@airbnb.com.INVALID>.
Do you have a link to both of these proposals?
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
> about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
>
> As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
> algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
> https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
>
> -
> Anirudh
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> > it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
> >
> > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> > independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> > believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> > repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
> >
> > Would anybody oppose this change?
> >
> > Thanks and have a nice weekend.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
>
Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase
Posted by Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>.
Hi Pedro,
mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been discussions
about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea.
As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to perform linear
algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think xtensor(
https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a candidate here.
-
Anirudh
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is cumbersome as
> it's a 3rdparty subrepo.
>
> Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of
> independent tests / library functionality, me and other developers
> believe that it would be good to assimilate this code in the
> repository for ease of contribution and changes without having to go
> trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow.
>
> Would anybody oppose this change?
>
> Thanks and have a nice weekend.
>
> Pedro.
>