You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 26, 2021. It is now read-only.
Description
Prepare tf and tf-eager backends for migration to tf 2.0
Proposal
deprecate graph mode and remove it when migrating to tf 2.0, as speed loss can and should be minimize with the eventual @tf.function decorator that does jit compilation + optimizaiton.
Refactor tf-eager backend to utilize functions stored inside tf.compat.v2, that are guaranteed to be compatible with tf 2.0.
Especially use optimizers, variables, losses and metrics stored there.
Additional context
Design changes for tf 2.0 and their discussion can be read up on in the rfcs
@justusschock you want this to be in the PR #102? Or should I make a new one
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I would prefer a new one based on this PR, since we should merge this separately (to first have an intermediate release supporting the TF1.14 Eager and Graph Mode).
Currently the eager backend is build upon tf.keras.layer. Since TF 2.0 strengthens the usage of tf.keras, I would like to keep it that way, what do you think?
I don't know if we shoud really deprecate the graph mode completely, since it will still be faster than jit-compilation AFAIK.
Description
Prepare tf and tf-eager backends for migration to tf 2.0
Proposal
deprecate graph mode and remove it when migrating to tf 2.0, as speed loss can and should be minimize with the eventual @tf.function decorator that does jit compilation + optimizaiton.
Refactor tf-eager backend to utilize functions stored inside tf.compat.v2, that are guaranteed to be compatible with tf 2.0.
Especially use optimizers, variables, losses and metrics stored there.
Additional context
Design changes for tf 2.0 and their discussion can be read up on in the rfcs
@justusschock you want this to be in the PR #102? Or should I make a new one
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: