Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jul 10, 2025. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@duncanriach
Copy link
Contributor

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

@google-cla
Copy link

google-cla bot commented Mar 19, 2021

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).

📝 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.

@google-cla google-cla bot added the cla: no label Mar 19, 2021
@duncanriach
Copy link
Contributor Author

@googlebot I signed it!

@google-cla
Copy link

google-cla bot commented Mar 19, 2021

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).

📝 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 duncanriach force-pushed the determinism-rfc-changes branch from e6483c6 to 2ff42e2 Compare March 19, 2021 23:20
@google-cla google-cla bot added cla: yes and removed cla: no labels Mar 19, 2021
@duncanriach
Copy link
Contributor Author

@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
Copy link
Contributor

sanjoy commented Mar 23, 2021

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 ematejska changed the title [determinism] Improve list of ops in RFC RFC: [determinism] Improve list of ops in Mar 23, 2021
@ematejska
Copy link

@sanjoy. Seems ok with me with your approval.

@ematejska ematejska merged commit eadc7bc into tensorflow:master Apr 6, 2021
@duncanriach duncanriach deleted the determinism-rfc-changes branch April 29, 2021 01:03
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants