tensorflow / community

Stores documents used by the TensorFlow developer community
Apache License 2.0
1.26k stars 579 forks source link

RFC: [determinism] Improve list of ops in #370

Closed duncanriach closed 3 years ago

duncanriach commented 3 years ago

This updated list adds ops, fixes various issues, and sorts the ops lexicographically.

google-cla[bot] commented 3 years ago

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

:memo: Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.


What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers
Corporate signers

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

duncanriach commented 3 years ago

@googlebot I signed it!

google-cla[bot] commented 3 years ago

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

:memo: Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.


What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers
Corporate signers

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

duncanriach commented 3 years ago

@sanjoy: please will you advocate for these changes getting merged? Also, please will you approve for me to deliver these kinds of periodic updates to the RFC. I believe that these kinds of updates don't modify the fundamental nature of the RFC, and so shouldn't require broad approval, but do make the RFC more complete and correct and enable it to provide an accurate template for the future API documentation.

Does this make sense, or I am misunderstanding the nature of an approved RFC?

sanjoy commented 3 years ago

These kinds of updates LGTM to me (I agree with @duncanriach 's comment that these are not fundamental changes to the RFC). @ematejska do see any issues in merging these?

ematejska commented 3 years ago

@sanjoy. Seems ok with me with your approval.