mlpack IRC logs, 2018-05-14

Logs for the day 2018-05-14 (starts at 0:00 UTC) are shown below.

May 2018
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
--- Log opened Mon May 14 00:00:18 2018
00:57 -!- govg [~govg@unaffiliated/govg] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
00:59 -!- govg [~govg@unaffiliated/govg] has joined #mlpack
01:04 -!- govg [~govg@unaffiliated/govg] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:21 -!- govg [~govg@unaffiliated/govg] has joined #mlpack
04:34 -!- govg [~govg@unaffiliated/govg] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:34 -!- govg [~govg@unaffiliated/govg] has joined #mlpack
08:17 -!- witness_ [uid10044@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cvpmdkbweptshrwz] has joined #mlpack
09:58 -!- govg [~govg@unaffiliated/govg] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:00 -!- govg [~govg@unaffiliated/govg] has joined #mlpack
10:26 < zoq> ShikharJ: Hello, do you think the valid convolution (dilatation) is correct, the backward/gradient step for all the layer should be the same.
10:26 -!- witness_ [uid10044@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cvpmdkbweptshrwz] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
11:07 < ShikharJ> zoq: I'm not sure what you mean, the implementation is correct (see my example above).
11:20 < ShikharJ> fswatch.so
11:21 < zoq> ShikharJ: Have to take a look at the example (test).
11:56 < ShikharJ> zoq: Are you suggesting that a 3x3 kernel (with dilation = 2) should be augmented to a 5x5 kernel (with zeroes included in between), and the gradients correpsonding to that 5x5 kernel be used?
11:57 < zoq> yeah, it's not the fastest solution, but I thought that would work.
12:03 < ShikharJ> But wouldn't that be wrong? The kernel and the weights are defined for 3x3 size?
12:06 < zoq> In this case, we would only update and use a portion of the weights, true; but the output should be correct.
12:24 < ShikharJ> zoq: Just to be clear, we'll update the 3x3 original kernel with the parts of the 5x5 output obtained from Gradients method, right?
12:26 < zoq> ShikharJ: Correct, currently I'll see if I can think of another solution, but I think that would work for now. On the other side, are we going to use atrous convolutions for the GAN project?
12:27 -!- manish7294 [9d2527e3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.157.37.39.227] has joined #mlpack
12:50 < ShikharJ> zoq: Not quite, this is only for the sake of completion of the convolutional toolkit of mlpack.
12:50 < rcurtin> welcome to the first day of GSoC everybody :)
12:50 < rcurtin> (I guess my day starts later than everyone else's in the US)
12:52 < zoq> ShikharJ: Right, I guess it would be good to have it and test it out, but it's not the priority, I guess if the solution works it's okay, but as I said it's not ideal.
12:53 < zoq> rcurtin: Right, for me it's 3:00 pm :)
12:53 < rcurtin> :)
12:58 < manish7294> rcurtin: In India, we are already touching end of our day :)
13:01 < manish7294> rcurtin: Is it OK to talk now?
13:02 < rcurtin> manish7294: I am actually about to leave to go to work---is it too long to wait ~30-45 minutes?
13:02 < rcurtin> if so I can wait to leave for a little while
13:03 < manish7294> manish7294: No hurry! We can talk later.
13:03 < rcurtin> ok, I'll let you know when I am in the office :)
13:03 < manish7294> rcurtin: cool enough!
13:57 < rcurtin> manish7294: back now, sorry---took a little longer than expected
13:58 < manish7294> rcurtin: no worries! Need to discuss upon SDP formulation.
13:59 < manish7294> currently I tried make a prototype SDP but everytime I am ending upon with a matrix of huge size.
14:00 < manish7294> which is resulting in bad_alloc() error.
14:00 < rcurtin> right, so the SDP should be solving a matrix of dxd size where d == number of dimensions
14:00 < rcurtin> and the number of constraints should be k * n where k is probably between 1 and 5 and n is the number of points
14:00 < rcurtin> that shouldn't be so large that a bad_alloc happens, though
14:01 < manish7294> Here, constraints will be k * k * n as there are impostors too.
14:01 < rcurtin> no, I think that should be 2 * k * n
14:01 < rcurtin> since you have kn constraints for the neighbors and kn constraints for the impostors
14:03 < manish7294> I think you are right!
14:04 < manish7294> But as for sdp.C() matrix, in what way are you thinking on initializing that one.
14:07 < rcurtin> what are you currently trying?
14:07 < manish7294> I am getting confused with the constraint part of objective function
14:08 < manish7294> In order to include it in the objective function, I need a bigger matrix
14:09 < rcurtin> right, so, for the C matrix, we need to express the objective such that dot(C, M) == the objective function
14:10 < manish7294> yes, for that C must include targetNeighbor + impostors expression
14:10 < rcurtin> in other formulations like MVU, C can be expressed as sparse
14:11 < rcurtin> but remember also that M is dxd, so C must also be dxd
14:11 < rcurtin> which should be relatively small
14:11 < rcurtin> I'm not sure it will be sparse here, I haven't worked out the algebra to convert to dot(C, M) form
14:11 < rcurtin> actually, I think the BoostMetric paper has done the work for us... I was looking at the LMNN paper to start with
14:11 < rcurtin> https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI11/paper/viewFile/3571/3889
14:11 < manish7294> Yup! that's what is confusing me that how will we be keeping C as dxd
14:11 < rcurtin> see equation (P1)
14:12 < rcurtin> in their notation, we are closer to what we need... they have dot(M, A) + (some other things)
14:13 < rcurtin> the matrix A (equation 1) should be dxd
14:14 < manish7294> dot(M, A ) is fine. But that other thing includes inner product of (1-yijl) with eijl
14:15 < manish7294> So, this product in itself requires a dimension of N * N *N :(
14:16 < rcurtin> the C * sum(slack variables) should result in a scalar
14:17 < manish7294> Yup! but all slack variables are different. So , we can't declare their basis as a single 1 element
14:17 < rcurtin> we are just summing themm though, so I don't see the issue
14:18 < rcurtin> them*
14:18 < manish7294> Well, I can try keeping that whole term as a single element.
14:19 < manish7294> Still we will be needing d + 1 dimension
14:19 < manish7294> d for A and 1 for other term
14:19 < rcurtin> this doesn't make sense to me; the objective is just adding (in the notation of the BoostMetric paper) dot(A, M) and the C*sum(slack variables) term
14:20 < rcurtin> the objective is just a scalar
14:21 < manish7294> Here M is a matrix and A is a scalar. so it will result out as a scalar multiplication of matrix
14:21 < rcurtin> no, A is a dxd matrix
14:21 < rcurtin> and when you take dot(A, M) you get a scalar
14:22 < rcurtin> if I have some point x_i and x_j of dimension d, and I take (x_i - x_j)*(x_i - x_j)^T, I get a dxd matrix
14:22 < manish7294> You are right. But A is a scalar as A is sum of all target neighbor metric evaluation
14:23 < manish7294> Okay, Now it's getting worse. As you said objective function is a scalar :(
14:23 < rcurtin> each of those target-neighbor metric evaluations is a matrix of size dxd
14:24 < rcurtin> and we sum each of those, and we still get a dxd matrix
14:25 < rcurtin> one problem I do see is that the SDP class only supports objectives of the form dot(C, X) (in the notation of the SDP code, not the BoostMetric paper... sorry if that is confusing)
14:25 < rcurtin> so maybe we may need to change it to allow some penalty parameter, but that is not *too* hard I don't think
14:26 < rcurtin> let me know if I can clarify anything... the notation is not easy because the BoostMetric paper uses letters differently than the LMNN paper which also uses them differently than the mlpack code :)
14:26 < manish7294> But standard SDP is that only, we may need to convert the LMNN SDP to that form
14:27 < rcurtin> I don't see any way to "stuff" the penalty parameter into the matrix A, but let me think about it, maybe there is some easy algebra that can be done
14:27 < manish7294> I can show you a repersentation. Let me know what you think https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4ee6/a2bbec8a2c8f71d8fcca963d3320e6fe98c3.pdf
14:27 < rcurtin> sure, loading it now
14:27 < manish7294> see page 4
14:29 < rcurtin> ohh, I see... hang on, let me think about this
14:30 < manish7294> Sure! have your time
14:30 < rcurtin> hmm, so it may be a little bit hard to represent this with Armadillo
14:30 < rcurtin> but I agree that it could work
14:30 < rcurtin> basically, instead of handling the slack constraints separately, this formulation "stuffs" it all into the objective function
14:30 < manish7294> I tried but ending up with bad_alloc() :(
14:31 < manish7294> Yes
14:31 < rcurtin> well, it would definitely be better handled with the sp_mat class
14:31 < manish7294> sp_mat too reaches its limit here
14:31 < rcurtin> since in this formulation you linked to, we have a huge matrix where A (of size dxd) is dense, and epsilon is diagonal
14:31 -!- ImQ009 [~ImQ009@unaffiliated/imq009] has joined #mlpack
14:31 < manish7294> as you can see Eijl is diag matrix in objective
14:31 < rcurtin> it shouldn't, I don't think... how are you initializing it?
14:32 < rcurtin> right, agreed, it is diagonal, and it will have size (I think) 2*k*n
14:32 < rcurtin> so the total size of the sparse matrix should be (2*k*n + d) by (2*k*n + d)
14:32 < manish7294> Yup
14:32 < rcurtin> and what are k and n in the code you are trying to run?
14:33 < manish7294> k = 3, n=125
14:33 < rcurtin> right, and d is what?
14:33 < manish7294> d is 4
14:33 < rcurtin> okay, so this is a 754x754 matrix
14:34 < rcurtin> that should be easily representable even as a dense matrix
14:34 < manish7294> yup
14:34 < rcurtin> are you sure your implementation is correct?
14:34 < rcurtin> that will take 4.33MB of memory (assuming it's arma::mat), and less if it's arma::sp_mat
14:34 < manish7294> I was doing something worse. I was taking constraints as k * k*n
14:35 < rcurtin> but even that would only give 1129x1129
14:35 < rcurtin> which is 9.72MB for a dense matrix and less for a sparse matrix
14:35 < manish7294> Then I should probably check my code
14:36 < manish7294> Do you think this could work?
14:36 < rcurtin> the formulation you gave could work, but as we scale to larger data we will need to do one of two things:
14:36 < rcurtin> a) represent that matrix as an sp_mat, since it will contain mostly zeros
14:37 < rcurtin> b) write a simple wrapper class that represents the two parts of the matrix as a dense matrix (A) and the diagonal vector of slack variables (epsilon)
14:37 < rcurtin> and that simple wrapper class would have to implement the dot() function, or maybe a template specialization could be used for Evaluate() or something like this
14:38 < rcurtin> I guess the third option is, change the SDP class so that it supports inequality constraints, and then we could represent the slack variables like that
14:39 < manish7294> I will give it a shot again and will report to you by tommorow. If it's okay!
14:40 < manish7294> One more thing I need to dissus is about the constraint class.
14:40 < rcurtin> sure, that's just fine
14:41 < manish7294> Currently I have made a directory structure as: a separate directory for LMNN and Boostmetric with constraint class under lmnn namespace
14:42 < manish7294> Is it okay to keep constraint section in lmnn
14:43 < rcurtin> yeah, I don't see any issue with that
14:43 < rcurtin> honestly when I think about it more, I suspect it may be easier to write a new type of inequality constraint than to stuff the slack variables into the objective functino
14:43 < rcurtin> function*
14:44 < rcurtin> you can give the objective function idea a try to ensure that it works (for small problems where you can represent that whole matrix as an arma::mat, it's probably easier to implement and test)
14:44 < rcurtin> but I don't think that approach will scale as well or run as quickly without a custom matrix-like class (which would be a lot of work)
14:45 < manish7294> Yeah, this change could be promising. I will look into that. Could you give me some starters for this change?
14:46 < rcurtin> hmm, so let me look quickly to get an idea...
14:48 < rcurtin> hm, I don't know that I like the way this code is structured very much, so there may be a little bit of trickiness
14:48 < rcurtin> take a look at LRSDPFunction::EvaluateConstraint() though (in lrsdp_function_impl.hpp)
14:49 < rcurtin> you can see there that basically this just computes (<A, X> - b)
14:49 < rcurtin> so that is for a constraint like '<A, X> = b'
14:49 < manish7294> Right
14:49 < rcurtin> if we want a constraint instead like '<A, x> >= b', then we want to return 0 if <A, x> >= b, and otherwise we can return (<A, X> - b)
14:50 < rcurtin> (or that maybe should be (b - <A, X>), I didn't fully check the math I did there)
14:50 < rcurtin> as far as implementation goes, I could see a few possibilities
14:51 < rcurtin> the first might be to add a vector to the SDP class to specify what type each sparse and dense constraint is (that would be either equality or inequality, for now)
14:52 < rcurtin> another might be to add a 'denseInequalityA' and 'sparseInequalityA' member
14:52 < rcurtin> that makes the class a little more complex though
14:53 < rcurtin> I could see either way. the complexity is not a huge issue if it is well-documented so that anyone writing an SDP can understand how to add their constraints
14:53 < manish7294> Yup! that could a fine structural change
14:53 < rcurtin> we'd also have to modify the EvaluateConstraint() and GradientConstraint() functions of LRSDPFunction, as well as the PrimalDualSolver to be able to handle these types of constraints
14:55 < manish7294> Yup! I think that will do.
14:56 < manish7294> Thanks for help! :)
14:56 < rcurtin> sure, that is what I am here for :)
15:24 < manish7294> zoq: Just a dumb question. We have to push the blog at end of the each week right?
15:28 < zoq> manish7294: Good question, at the end or the beginning works just fine; last year most people pushed something on Monday.
15:29 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@2a00:79e0:d:fd00:5d11:7973:7c9d:54cf] has joined #mlpack
15:31 < rcurtin> manish7294: for the first week, you could just have an intro post or something if you wanted to do it today
15:33 < manish7294> rcurtin: Sure, I will push something related to the current state.
15:36 < rcurtin> sounds good
16:09 < ShikharJ> rcurtin: Can we request the armadillo team for porting the shed_rows and shed_cols function for arma::Cube as well?
16:10 < ShikharJ> It is required in the Gradients method for Atrous Convolution.
16:12 < ShikharJ> Currently, I haave to use a dummy Matrix and an additional Cube and then do the computation slice by slice.
16:12 < ShikharJ> *have
16:20 < zoq> ShikharJ: I guess an easy option is to implement the functionality in mlpack (https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack/tree/master/src/mlpack/core/arma_extend) and to ask Conrad if he likes to backport it into armadillo.
16:21 < zoq> ShikharJ: armadillo provides a neat way for extending classes
16:21 < ShikharJ> Ah, I'll take a look there. Thanks :)
16:23 < zoq> ShikharJ: Ryan did a nice presentation that has some more information about the armadillo feature; let's see if I can find it.
16:24 -!- manish7294 [9d2527e3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.157.37.39.227] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:33 < zoq> hm, can't find it right now, but I guess once Ryan get back he can post the link :9
16:33 < zoq> Bascially, at the end of the cube class armadillo does something like:
16:33 < zoq> #ifdef ARMA_EXTRA_CUBE_MEAT
16:33 < zoq> #include ARMA_INCFILE_WRAP(ARMA_EXTRA_CUBE_MEAT)
16:33 < zoq> #endif
16:33 < zoq> which allows you to define ARMA_EXTRA_CUBE_MEAT and armadillo will include that for you
16:35 < ShikharJ> Hmm, I see if I'm able to come up with something. If not, maybe we can just open an issue for someone else to optimize the operations later.
16:35 < ShikharJ> *I'll
16:35 < zoq> sounds like a good plan to me
16:50 < rcurtin> ShikharJ: the armadillo team is me and conrad :)
16:50 < rcurtin> so you could definitely implement it, and we can submit it upstream
16:53 < ShikharJ> Oh I didn't know that :P Sure, I'll implement it, but my first priority would be to get the dilated convolution PR merged. So I think opening an issue for a later work would be much quicker.
16:53 < rcurtin> sure, that's fine
16:53 < rcurtin> I guess I should say, really Conrad does a lot more work for Armadillo than I do, I'd say I'm a "frequent contributor" and I did most of the sparse support over the years
16:57 < ShikharJ> rcurtin: I don't think I know the history of Armadillo (like you told us about mlpack). I'd love to hear it :)
17:02 < rcurtin> ah, I don't know this one as well but I can try...
17:02 < rcurtin> Conrad originally developed it in his work at NICTA in roughly 2008, and has mostly maintained the project himself since then
17:02 < rcurtin> around 2011 I needed sparse matrix support for mlpack, so with a few other mlpack contributors we put together an initial implementation and sent it to him
17:03 < rcurtin> since then, I've been involved mostly from the sparse support side of things
17:03 < rcurtin> we actually just submitted a paper on the Armadillo sparse matrix format, if you are interested:
17:03 < rcurtin> https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.03380
17:05 < ShikharJ> Paper seems interesting! And does Conrad contribute to mlpack as well?
17:05 < rcurtin> occasionally he submits bugfixes, but he hasn't written any actual algorithms or anything for inclusion in mlpack
17:05 < rcurtin> typically the bugfixes are just handling Armadillo warnings or issues (since he tests Armadillo releases against mlpack)
17:07 < ShikharJ> I see. Before mlpack, I was a GSoC student at SymEngine (a symbolic manipulation library). That's where I was first introduced to linear algebra routines and sparse matrices. Working with matrices is actually quite interesting.
17:07 < rcurtin> yes, there's a lot more to it than I originally expected
17:07 < ShikharJ> Learnt a lot from that experience.
17:08 < rcurtin> in 2010, I thought it would be easy to implement sparse matrices... I quickly found out that they are completely different and much harder to handle than dense matrices
17:10 < ShikharJ> Yeah, and the feeling you get after optimizing and implementing the each of those routines is quite rewarding in itself.
17:10 < rcurtin> it's true, for me I get the same feeling accelerating algorithms in mlpack
17:10 < rcurtin> although I wish I had more time to really dig in like that :)
17:11 < ShikharJ> :)
17:13 < rcurtin> hmm, it looks like the SimpleTransposedConvolutionLayerTest is failing sometimes:
17:13 < rcurtin> http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/
17:13 < rcurtin> http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/mlpackTest.ANNLayerTest._home_jenkins_jobs_docker.mlpack.nightly/build_workspace_armadillo_version_armadillo-7/SimpleTransposedConvolutionLayerTest/
17:13 < rcurtin> I took a look into it a little bit, and it looks like valgrind is throwing some issues when I run the test
17:14 < ShikharJ> Yeah, the output is correct, but even when I ran SimpleTransposedConvolutionLayerTest in conjunction with other tests, sometimes, on my system it failed too.
17:14 < rcurtin> right, so I tried to run the test alone with different random seeds, but I didn't seem to be able to easily produce an issue
17:15 < rcurtin> so I then tried valgrind, but I haven't dug deep enough to see what's really wrong yet
17:18 < rcurtin> I think it may have to do with calling Forward(std::move(input), std::move(output)), then using the 'output' matrix, but I am not 100% sure
17:22 < rcurtin> actually, this leads to another question
17:22 < rcurtin> zoq: for the Forward(), Backward(), and Gradient() functions, do the output matrices need to be rvalue references, or could they just be references?
17:22 < rcurtin> maybe there is a piece I am missing or misunderstanding when I think about it
18:06 -!- manish7294 [9d2527e3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.157.37.39.227] has joined #mlpack
18:08 < manish7294> rcurtin: zoq: I tried pushing a blog but got permission error. Are we allowed to push yet?
18:09 < rcurtin> ah, hang on, there is one permission I forgot to set
18:10 < rcurtin> manish7294: should be fixed now... try again :)
18:11 < manish7294> rcurtin: Thanks! It worked!
18:11 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@2a00:79e0:d:fd00:5d11:7973:7c9d:54cf] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:12 < rcurtin> :)
18:13 < manish7294> rcurtin: but something happened to http://mlpack.org/gsocblog/
18:14 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@2a00:79e0:d:fd00:5d11:7973:7c9d:54cf] has joined #mlpack
18:15 < manish7294> rcurtin: Now it's working
18:16 < rcurtin> right, jenkins rebuilds that page
18:17 -!- manish7294 [9d2527e3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.157.37.39.227] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
18:17 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@2a00:79e0:d:fd00:5d11:7973:7c9d:54cf] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:18 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@85.255.234.2] has joined #mlpack
18:23 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@85.255.234.2] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:23 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@2a00:79e0:d:fd00:5d11:7973:7c9d:54cf] has joined #mlpack
19:01 -!- sumedhghaisas2 [~yaaic@85.255.234.33] has joined #mlpack
19:02 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@2a00:79e0:d:fd00:5d11:7973:7c9d:54cf] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
19:17 -!- sumedhghaisas2 [~yaaic@85.255.234.33] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:18 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@2a00:79e0:d:fd00:5d11:7973:7c9d:54cf] has joined #mlpack
19:19 -!- Anmol [b64d193e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.182.77.25.62] has joined #mlpack
19:20 -!- Anmol [b64d193e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.182.77.25.62] has quit [Client Quit]
19:20 < zoq> rcurtin: Theoretically a reference should work just fine; about the issue, why not jsut use arma::mat(.mptr(), row, cols, false, false).
19:20 < zoq> Let's see if I can reproduce the issue.
19:23 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@2a00:79e0:d:fd00:5d11:7973:7c9d:54cf] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:23 < zoq> manish7294: Really nice update, eager to read more about LMNN.
19:24 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@85.255.234.33] has joined #mlpack
19:26 < zoq> will also look into the bigbatch sgd issue
19:28 < zoq> Wasn't there a time jenkins would send a mail to the list or a user if a job failed?
19:46 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@85.255.234.33] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:46 -!- sumedhghaisas [~yaaic@host-92-8-33-72.as43234.net] has joined #mlpack
19:48 < rcurtin> zoq: I can set up the email for unstable builds again
19:48 < rcurtin> or the IRC notification
19:49 < rcurtin> I think that test failures are uncommon enough (at least in 3.0.1) that it wouldn't be overwhelming
19:49 < zoq> both works for me
19:49 < rcurtin> yeah, I can set those up
19:49 < rcurtin> in a meeting now though
19:49 < rcurtin> so I will do it afterwards
19:50 < zoq> sounds good
20:12 < rcurtin> ok, I added IRC and email notifications for the nightly and weekly builds
20:12 < rcurtin> let's start the nightly build and see what happens...
20:13 < rcurtin> should be about 2-3 hours until it's done
20:52 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_49_0,release,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 39 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
20:52 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_49_0,release,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 40 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
20:53 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_49_0,release,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: UNSTABLE in 40 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
20:53 < rcurtin> ahh, I suspect there will be a lot of notifications like this then...
20:59 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_66_0,release,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 47 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
20:59 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_66_0,release,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 47 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:00 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_66_0,release,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 48 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:04 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_49_0,release,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 52 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:07 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_49_0,release,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 54 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:07 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_49_0,release,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 55 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:07 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_49_0,release,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 55 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:07 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_49_0,release,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 55 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:08 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_66_0,release,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 55 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:08 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_66_0,release,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 56 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:08 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_49_0,release,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 56 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:09 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_66_0,release,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 56 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:09 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_49_0,release,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 57 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:09 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_49_0,release,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 57 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:09 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
21:10 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_49_0,release,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 57 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:10 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_66_0,release,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 58 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:10 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_66_0,release,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 58 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:11 < zoq> hm, at least we see that something isn't okay, but not sure this is the best we can do
21:11 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_66_0,release,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 59 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:12 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_66_0,release,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 59 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:12 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_66_0,release,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 0 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:13 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_66_0,release,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 0 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=release,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:13 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_49_0,debug,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 1 hr 1 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:14 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_49_0,debug,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 1 hr 2 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:16 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_49_0,debug,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 1 hr 3 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:16 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_66_0,debug,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 1 hr 4 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:16 -!- ImQ009 [~ImQ009@unaffiliated/imq009] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:17 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_66_0,debug,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 1 hr 5 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:18 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has joined #mlpack
21:20 < rcurtin> yeah... I will look into the settings more...
21:22 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_66_0,debug,llvm-5.0.1,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 1 hr 10 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-5.0.1,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:25 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:28 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_49_0,debug,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 15 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:28 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_49_0,debug,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 16 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:29 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has joined #mlpack
21:30 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_66_0,debug,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 18 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:31 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_49_0,debug,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 19 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:32 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_66_0,debug,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 20 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:33 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_66_0,debug,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 20 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:35 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:39 -!- vivekp [~vivek@146.196.36.73] has joined #mlpack
21:39 -!- vivekp [~vivek@146.196.36.73] has quit [Changing host]
21:39 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has joined #mlpack
21:40 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_66_0,debug,gcc-6.1.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 27 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-6.1.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:43 -!- vpal [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has joined #mlpack
21:44 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:44 -!- vpal is now known as vivekp
21:46 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_49_0,debug,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 34 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:47 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_49_0,debug,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 34 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
21:51 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:51 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_66_0,debug,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 39 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
22:01 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_66_0,debug,gcc-7.2.0,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 1 hr 49 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=gcc-7.2.0,label=linux-amd64/317/
22:04 -!- vivekp [~vivek@unaffiliated/vivekp] has joined #mlpack
22:21 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_49_0,debug,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 2 hr 9 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
22:25 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_66_0,debug,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 2 hr 13 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
22:27 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_66_0,debug,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 2 hr 14 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
22:27 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-6.500.5,boost_1_66_0,debug,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 2 hr 14 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-6.500.5,boost_version=boost_1_66_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
22:28 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-7.100.3,boost_1_49_0,debug,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: SUCCESS in 2 hr 16 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-7.100.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
22:29 < jenkins-mlpack> Project docker mlpack nightly build » armadillo-8.300.3,boost_1_49_0,debug,llvm-3.5.2-patch,linux-amd64 build #317: STILL UNSTABLE in 2 hr 17 min: http://masterblaster.mlpack.org/job/docker%20mlpack%20nightly%20build/armadillo_version=armadillo-8.300.3,boost_version=boost_1_49_0,buildmode=debug,compiler_version=llvm-3.5.2-patch,label=linux-amd64/317/
--- Log closed Tue May 15 00:00:20 2018