[jakirkham]

Relax the CuPy version constraint to allow CuPy 9 to be used as well.

[ajschmidt8]

It looks the libraries below are pinned to the old version spec. Should this change be tested with them before merging?

• https://github.com/rapidsai/cuxfilter/blob/branch-0.18/conda/recipes/cuxfilter/meta.yaml#L33
• https://github.com/rapidsai/cusignal/blob/branch-0.18/conda/recipes/cusignal/meta.yaml#L31
• https://github.com/rapidsai/cudf/blob/branch-0.18/conda/recipes/cudf/meta.yaml#L38
• https://github.com/rapidsai/cuml/blob/branch-0.18/conda/recipes/cuml/meta.yaml#L44

[jakirkham]

That makes sense and agree. Let's hold off on this for a bit then.

[ajschmidt8]

That makes sense and agree. Let's hold off on this for a bit then.

@jakirkham, sounds good to me. do you want to close this PR or convert it to a draft in the meantime? This might help avoid some confusion because I see Dante is also changing the spec in NVIDIA/cuml#3378 (which will also need to be tested with all the repos).

[jakirkham]

Good point. Marked as draft. We can revisit once we are ready 🙂

[mike-wendt]

Should this be merged with #208 or the other way around?

[jakirkham]

Would do Dante's PR first. I think we can wait on this one for a bit. Happy to resolve conflicts here after that goes in.

[raydouglass]

@jakirkham What's the status of this?

[jakirkham]

CuPy has been releasing some betas (which we have packaged in conda-forge). These have seen some use already. The CuPy 9 RC is due out 25 March. CuPy 9 final is due out 22 April. More details here ( cupy/cupy#3891 )

This is close to RAPIDS 0.19 release schedule though the fact that RAPIDS 0.19 is due out 15 April (a week before CuPy 9) could make things tricky if we want to include CuPy 9 in RAPIDS 0.19.

Here are some options:

1. We discuss with CuPy devs about bumping up their release to align with ours
2. We push out the RAPIDS release a week or so to line up with CuPy's
3. We hold off on this until RAPIDS 0.20

Thoughts? 🙂

[pentschev]

I would like to point out that CuPy is today maintained by only 3-4 people and they're very often working real hard (including weekends) when release dates are close, so if we want to align 0.19 and CuPy 9 I would suggest we try to align RAPIDS release to CuPy's to alleviate pressure on them.

[kkraus14]

I would like to point out that CuPy is today maintained by only 3-4 people and they're very often working real hard (including weekends) when release dates are close, so if we want to align 0.19 and CuPy 9 I would suggest we try to align RAPIDS release to CuPy's to alleviate pressure on them.

RAPIDS 0.19 release is aligned to GTC so we cannot push it at this point.

[pentschev]

RAPIDS 0.19 release is aligned to GTC so we cannot push it at this point.

Ok, then our alternatives are:

• We don't tie RAPIDS 0.19 to CuPy 9;
• We ask CuPy maintainers to release earlier because of GTC/RAPIDS 0.19 -- this will possibly require us to allocate a couple engineers in the 2-3 weeks before CuPy's release to help ensure everything goes smoothly.

We have a biweekly call with PFN next Tuesday, so it would be good if we have a decision on what to do by Monday early afternoon ET.

[jakirkham]

Do we know if PfN is presenting at GTC? Maybe they would be interested in releasing around the same time for the same reason

[pentschev]

Do we know if PfN is presenting at GTC? Maybe they would be interested in releasing around the same time for the same reason

They've been offered to submit proposals, I don't know what happened to those, I'll check.

[pentschev]

I checked and there will only be an Optuna talk from PFN, no CuPy talks at GTC.

[pentschev]

Reminder that we have the CuPy biweekly meeting tomorrow with PFN. If we need to check whether CuPy 9 release can be done earlier to meet our needs, please let me know by 3pm ET today !

[ajschmidt8]

The below libraries have cupy pins that are <9. I think we'll want to get them updated before merging this PR so that we don't run into version conflicts in the containers.

• https://github.com/rapidsai/cuxfilter/blob/branch-0.20/conda/recipes/cuxfilter/meta.yaml#L33
• https://github.com/rapidsai/cudf/blob/branch-0.20/conda/recipes/cudf/meta.yaml#L39
• https://github.com/rapidsai/cuml/blob/branch-0.20/conda/recipes/cuml/meta.yaml#L44

cusignal has <9.1 which should be fine, but may not hurt to update to <10.0.0a0 also

• https://github.com/rapidsai/cusignal/blob/branch-0.20/conda/recipes/cusignal/meta.yaml#L31

[jakirkham]

Thanks AJ! 😄

Have submitted the following PRs to allow CuPy 9 to be use in the projects listed:

• Allow CuPy 9 to be used with cuxfilter cuxfilter#275
• Allow CuPy 9 to be used with cuDF NVIDIA/cudf#8082
• Allow CuPy 9 to be used with cuML NVIDIA/cuml#3798
• Allow CuPy 9 to be used with cuSignal cusignal#359

[jakirkham]

All of those PRs have passed 😄

Asking relevant teams for reviews

[jakirkham]

Looks like all of those PRs are now merged. Please let me know if there's anything else we need to do here 🙂

[ajschmidt8]

Looks like all of those PRs are now merged. Please let me know if there's anything else we need to do here

@jakirkham, just updated the branch here. assuming CI succeeds again, we can go ahead and merge 👍.

[jakirkham]

Looks like it passes! 🟢 😄 🎉

[jakirkham]

Thanks AJ! 😄