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

feat: Add 2020 roadmap #1121

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 7, 2020
Merged

feat: Add 2020 roadmap #1121

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 7, 2020

Conversation

gaocegege
Copy link
Member

Signed-off-by: Ce Gao gaoce@caicloud.io

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

  1. Please confirm that if this PR changes any image versions, then that's the sole change this PR makes.

Release note:


@kubeflow-bot
Copy link

This change is Reviewable

@gaocegege
Copy link
Member Author

/assign @johnugeorge @andreyvelich

@johnugeorge
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

Copy link
Member

@andreyvelich andreyvelich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gaocegege Thank you for the PR. I added few things.

ROADMAP.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ROADMAP.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
ROADMAP.md Outdated
* Enhance release process; adding automation (see https://bit.ly/2F7o4gM)
- Delete Suggestion deployment after Experiment is finished [#1061](https://github.com/kubeflow/katib/issues/1061)
- Save Suggestion state after deployment is deleted [#1062](https://github.com/kubeflow/katib/issues/1062)
- Reconsider the design of Trial Template [#906](https://github.com/kubeflow/katib/issues/906)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe also add: Change design of NAS Model Constructor?

As you know, we have model constructor inside Training Container. I think it is not very useful for the user.

If we can construct model somewhere else (Suggestion or Init Container) and send, for example, json representation of the model directly to the training container, user doesn't need to include this part to the training container.

I will create an issue about it soon.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Looking forward to your issue.

@andreyvelich
Copy link
Member

Also, I found that we have something in TODO for the current NAS RL suggestion: https://github.com/kubeflow/katib/tree/master/pkg/suggestion/v1alpha3/NAS_Reinforcement_Learning#to-do.

What do you think, should we add something to the ROADMAP?
For example, step 1: "Add 'micro' mode, which means searching for a neural cell instead of the whole neural network. "

/cc @johnugeorge @gaocegege

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from johnugeorge April 3, 2020 11:40
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

@andreyvelich: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: gaocegege.

Note that only kubeflow members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

Also, I found that we have something in TODO for the current NAS RL suggestion: https://github.com/kubeflow/katib/tree/master/pkg/suggestion/v1alpha3/NAS_Reinforcement_Learning#to-do.

What do you think, should we add something to the ROADMAP?
For example, step 1: "Add 'micro' mode, which means searching for a neural cell instead of the whole neural network. "

/cc @johnugeorge @gaocegege

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

Signed-off-by: Ce Gao <gaoce@caicloud.io>
@gaocegege
Copy link
Member Author

@andreyvelich Do we have the bandwidth for the TODO in ENAS? I think we can add it but in low priority. WDYT

Signed-off-by: Ce Gao <gaoce@caicloud.io>
Signed-off-by: Ce Gao <gaoce@caicloud.io>
Copy link
Member Author

@gaocegege gaocegege left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Comments are addressed, PTAL

/assign @andreyvelich

@johnugeorge
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@johnugeorge
Copy link
Member

Fixes: #1104

@johnugeorge
Copy link
Member

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: johnugeorge

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 190aa6e into kubeflow:master Apr 7, 2020
@andreyvelich
Copy link
Member

andreyvelich commented Apr 7, 2020

@gaocegege Thank you for the changes!
Regarding to ENAS, yes I have few thoughts that can be improved.
Should I add them to the ROADMAP or issue is enough?

sperlingxx pushed a commit to sperlingxx/katib that referenced this pull request Jul 9, 2020
* feat: Add 2020 roadmap

Signed-off-by: Ce Gao <gaoce@caicloud.io>

* fix: Address comments in kubeflow#1121

Signed-off-by: Ce Gao <gaoce@caicloud.io>

* fix: Address comments

Signed-off-by: Ce Gao <gaoce@caicloud.io>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants