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
tensorflow-io 0.10.0 release #553
Comments
So should we make sure that each tests runs tf.keras also? The steps for moving forward sound good to me and the API cleanup seems reasonable. |
Thanks @BryanCutler. I think it makes sense to make sure that each dataset runs with tf.keras. We could simplify as we only need to check if the tf.data + tf.keras pipeline is working. I think something like a simple one or two layer of tf.keras, and a tf.data.Dataset of 10 elements should be good enough. It might even make sense to keep a template of tests so that it applies to every Dataset we implement. We could use |
Some other thought during the trip to Contributor Summit: API stability Eventually we have to guarantee API is stable after 1.0, I think we have a long way to go (I could see we will reach 0.20 or later before 1.0 is released):
Other Language Bindings and Graph Mode Eventually other language bindings will come in play. We could work with other SIGs so other language bindings does not need to be in tensorflow/io repo. However, in order to support other language bindings we will need to support graph mode saving, so that at least the ops could be saved as a graph and played out with other languages.
Namepace Our python namespace is bloated as we didn't envision we could have a lot of implementation span across so many areas and communities.
C++ template hard to use We all know it is hard to implement in C++ and this to an extent is a big reason we don't have lots of C++ contributions so far. By the way, currently our ratio of lines of code for C++ vs Python is about 51% vs 44% (based on GitHub metric). Would really love to see our repo eventually becomes Python > C++.
|
The TF 2.1 release candidate was planned for 11/07: It might have been delayed though it looks like tensorflow's r2.1 branch has been created yesterday. For that I believe TF 2.1 rc0 (or rc1) will be released next week. That means TF 2.1 final might be released in another several weeks (likely December). Relate to tensorflow-io, I am thinking it makes sense for us to release a 0.10.0 before the final release of TF 2.1 (as we have added many new features since 0.9.0). We could then release 0.11.0 at the same time TF 2.1 is released. /cc @BryanCutler @terrytangyuan @vlasenkoalexey @dmitrievanthony |
With TF 2.1.0rc0 out, we could prepare for a 0.10.0 release (match TF 2.0). After TF 2.1.0 final we then release 0.11.0 for TF 2.1. |
Created PR #661 for the RELEASE note update. |
With #661 merged in, we are pretty much ready to have the next release. The candidate binaries are stored in: I will do some additional local testing. If everything is fine and there is no objections, we will just push for a release today. /cc @terrytangyuan @BryanCutler @vlasenkoalexey @dmitrievanthony |
All looks good, will cut the release. Here is the binary:
|
tensorflow-io 0.10.0 has been released: https://github.com/tensorflow/io/releases/tag/v0.10.0 Thanks all! 👍 🎉 |
Since TensorFlow 1.15.0 and 2.0.0 has been released, we are in the process of releasing 0.8.0 (tracking #459) and 0.9.0 (tracking #517).
As we use the same code base for 0.8.0 (for TF 1.15.0) and 0.9.0 (for TF 2.0.0), we took quite a few compromises to maintain compatibility.
I think it makes sense for use to release a 0.10.0 soon, to create a clean baseline moving forward with TF 2.0. Several things I can think of for 0.10.0:
_eager.py
suffix).Note: Even though we only support eager mode, the graph mode is automatically tested in tf.keras (tf.keras use graph mode internally).
tf.compat.v1.
(as we only support 2.0 moving forward.Finally, I want to bring up the API discussion in #537. I think a namespace cleanup and consolidation is overdue for tensorflow-io?
@dmitrievanthony @terrytangyuan @BryanCutler @vlasenkoalexey Any comments or suggestions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: