Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update extension to 'candidate' maturity level #37

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fmigneault
Copy link
Collaborator

@fmigneault fmigneault commented Oct 26, 2024

Description

Given the number of participants in the paper, and the actual publishing of the paper, we can consider the extension is a fairly stable state.

As per Extension Maturity, it is time to move it to Candidate.

Related Issue

Type of Change

  • 📚 Examples, docs, tutorials or dependencies update;
  • 🔧 Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue);
  • 🥂 Improvement (non-breaking change which improves an existing feature);
  • 🚀 New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality);
  • 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change);
  • 🔐 Security fix.

Checklist

  • I've read the CONTRIBUTING.md guide;
  • I've updated the code style using make check;
  • I've written tests for all new methods and classes that I created;
  • I've written the docstring in Google format for all the methods and classes that I used.

@fmigneault fmigneault requested review from m-mohr and rbavery October 26, 2024 01:38
@fmigneault fmigneault self-assigned this Oct 26, 2024
@m-mohr
Copy link

m-mohr commented Oct 26, 2024

Are there 3 implementations and no planned breaking changes in the issue tracker? :)

I was surprised by how extensive the documentation is now 👌

@rbavery
Copy link
Collaborator

rbavery commented Oct 26, 2024

Are there 3 implementations and no planned breaking changes in the issue tracker? :)

There's one issue being discussed that could include a breaking change, #31, if we remove torch.compile as an artifact_type option and instead introduce a new jit_compiled field. Following the Candidate guidelines, this would require a new version. This isn't planned/decided yet, going to discuss this and some other issues with Francis when we meet up next week at SigSpatial.

Mostly stable, breaking changes require a new version and minor changes are unlikely.

given that we would increment the version if there was a breaking change and have been following this practice for awhile after the 1.0.0 version I think Candidate makes sense.

@fmigneault
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Good point @m-mohr
We might need to hold off a bit longer until all issues are resolved.

@m-mohr
Copy link

m-mohr commented Oct 28, 2024

Not necessarily all issues, but if breaking changes are in the pipeline, we usually hold the extension maturity back for a bit.

@rbavery
Copy link
Collaborator

rbavery commented Oct 29, 2024

Makes sense, I talked with Francis and here are breaking changes we will resolve before advancing. Besides this no others are in the pipeline

revise norm types: #24
require certain statistics if certain normalization is specified: #26
revise artifact_type, add mlm:compile_method: #31

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants