Hi,
As requested by Dave. IMO This is going to happen infrequently and possibly
never. I can only think of a couple of occasions when this has been discussed
in the last five years. Things generally work out one way or another before
this step needs to be taken.
The current IPMC policy[1] stat
Hi,
> Let’s discuss outside the immediate context of MxNet reasons for the IPMC to
> suspend a podling.
Sure, it would be best to start a seperate thread for that. I think however it
would be so infrequent and each situation different that it would be hard to
come up with some that would work
Sure.
We still need to define suspension.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2020, at 9:15 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> If NVIDIA changes the license then it must be very soon. If so then the
>> issue is gone.
>
> And the issue may not be gone unless the license chang
Hi,
> If NVIDIA changes the license then it must be very soon. If so then the issue
> is gone.
And the issue may not be gone unless the license change is retroactive.
Currently the project has maven artefacts in the Apache repo that contain
category X code. [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://issu
Hi -
Let’s discuss outside the immediate context of MxNet reasons for the IPMC to
suspend a podling.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2020, at 8:57 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> HI,
>
>> Don’t make a noncompliant binary release.
>
> The project is (sadly) already doing this [
HI,
> Don’t make a noncompliant binary release.
The project is (sadly) already doing this [1], they are hoping the licensing
issue can be sorted, but its taken more than 5 months and little visible
progress on that seems to have been done. NVIDIA is considering changing, but
to what we don’t
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2020, at 7:31 PM, Sheng Zha wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for the vote. It looks like we forgot to remove the mentions of the
> resolved issues in the DISCLAIMER-WIP. Checking the linked issues, all of
> them have been resolved in 1.8. Is this still a b
HI,
Is there anything from the known issues in [1] that needs to be added?
Justin
1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional command
Regarding the disclaimer issues, I have reviewed the 3 issues called out in the
disclaimer and found that they have all been resolved. Here is a PR [1] to
update the disclaimer and add the additional language describing the licensing
incompatibility when building for GPU with Nvidia licensed too
Hi,
Re the licensed files missing from LICENSE here are some examples[1][2][3][4],
but I haven’t done a full check so there are probably more.
Thanks,
Justin
1.
./3rdparty/onnx-tensorrt/third_party/onnx/third_party/pybind11/tests/test_gil_scoped.cpp
2.
./3rdparty/onnx-tensorrt/third_party/onn
Hi,
I'm the author of one of the 3rd party libraries, intgemm, that is
new in 1.8. It is MIT licensed but also includes catch for testing
under Boost. MXNet doesn't compile my tests.
https://github.com/kpu/intgemm/blob/master/LICENSE
In https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pul
Hi,
> Thanks for the vote. It looks like we forgot to remove the mentions of the
> resolved issues in the DISCLAIMER-WIP. Checking the linked issues, all of
> them have been resolved in 1.8. Is this still a blocking issue if the actual
> issues that the DISCLAIMER-WIP links to are addressed?
T
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the vote. It looks like we forgot to remove the mentions of the
resolved issues in the DISCLAIMER-WIP. Checking the linked issues, all of them
have been resolved in 1.8. Is this still a blocking issue if the actual issues
that the DISCLAIMER-WIP links to are addressed?
Be
Hi,
The resolution was put on the board agenda, but given it was received less than
24 hours before the board meeting it was decided to postpone it till next
month, to give board members time to properly consider the proposal.
Thanks,
Justin
-
+1
On 2020/10/19 17:29:23, Tianqi Chen wrote:
> Dear Incubator:
>
> A month ago we brought up the discussion about graduating TVM as TLP. After
> great discussions in the apache way [2],
> we get good support from the incubator and also get helpful feedback about
> producing another release.
>
+1 (non-binding)
I checked:
[x] Download links are valid.
[x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[x] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
[x] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for the repository[1].
From: ling miao
Sent:
16 matches
Mail list logo
