Skip to content

Remove _kernel, sort out kappa #95

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

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Apr 25, 2020
Merged

Remove _kernel, sort out kappa #95

merged 20 commits into from
Apr 25, 2020

Conversation

willtebbutt
Copy link
Member

@willtebbutt willtebbutt commented Apr 23, 2020

Addresses #87 .

Also no longer exports kappa, as it's now not needed as part of the public API.

I found a redundant function called _scale, so removed that.

Iteration over concrete subtypes of Kernel removed from generic as no longer required.

edit: the reason for quite a bit of code movement is that I originally hadn't realised I could implement (k::SimpleKernel)(x, y), and had to modify most kernel files, so sorted out spacing while I was there. I stand my the changes in formatting, even if they're not strictly the focus of this PR.

@willtebbutt willtebbutt requested review from theogf and devmotion April 23, 2020 20:19
@devmotion
Copy link
Member

I could implement (k::SimpleKernel)(x, y)

As I wrote in my comment above, I would be fine with this change but it requires us to drop support for Julia < 1.3 which we have been trying to avoid so far.

@willtebbutt
Copy link
Member Author

Oh, fair point. For some reason I thought it didn't affect this case... my mistake. Personally I'm completely happy to drop < 1.3 support -- it's not like we have packages that depend on KernelFunctions that are restricted to 1.0 as we've not been around for long enough. Moreover, 1.5 is likely to be the next LTS, at which point it really makes sense to insist that 1.5 is the minimum version of Julia that we support.

@theogf thoughts on this?

@theogf
Copy link
Member

theogf commented Apr 24, 2020

I am also happy to drop support julia < 1.3. Given the new structure, it does not make sense anymore to keep it this way.

@willtebbutt willtebbutt mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2020
@willtebbutt
Copy link
Member Author

All requested changes addressed. If either @theogf or @devmotion could re-review to approve / request more changes, that would be grand.

Copy link
Member

@devmotion devmotion left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me, just left two minor comments. If they are resolved and tests pass, I'm fine with merging!

@theogf
Copy link
Member

theogf commented Apr 24, 2020

Ok for me too! Just need to make the tests pass

@willtebbutt
Copy link
Member Author

All comments addressed. Will merge once tests pass.

@willtebbutt
Copy link
Member Author

@theogf any idea what's going on with the test failures?

@theogf
Copy link
Member

theogf commented Apr 25, 2020

It's weird I just tried the branch locally and it's passing the tests

@willtebbutt
Copy link
Member Author

Hmmm yeah, same. Presumably a dependency has broken somewhere in the pipeline. Maybe it's a Flux thing?

@devmotion
Copy link
Member

It's weird I just tried the branch locally and it's passing the tests

It fails for me 🤔 Did you run ] up before running the tests?

@devmotion
Copy link
Member

Presumably a dependency has broken somewhere in the pipeline. Maybe it's a Flux thing?

I compared https://travis-ci.com/github/JuliaGaussianProcesses/KernelFunctions.jl/jobs/323153454 with https://travis-ci.com/github/JuliaGaussianProcesses/KernelFunctions.jl/jobs/322480149, and it seems the main difference in the dependencies are Zygote 0.4.17 instead of 0.4.15 and CUDAdrv 6.2.3 instead of 6.2.2. The Flux version was 0.10.4 in both cases.

@willtebbutt
Copy link
Member Author

willtebbutt commented Apr 25, 2020

This change in the v0.4.17 release looks relevant.

@devmotion
Copy link
Member

Yep, seems someone else got similar issues with 0.4.17 (linked in the relevant PR). I just confirmed it locally, tests pass with 0.4.16.

@willtebbutt
Copy link
Member Author

I've temporarily pinned Zygote to 0.4.16. @devmotion do you have the bandwidth to chase this up on the Zygote repo?

@willtebbutt willtebbutt merged commit 9207a96 into master Apr 25, 2020
@devmotion devmotion deleted the wct/87 branch April 25, 2020 21:24
This was referenced Apr 27, 2020
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