KEMBAR78
Minor SGD docs clarification fixing #137356, #137352 by janeyx99 · Pull Request #137528 · pytorch/pytorch · GitHub
Skip to content

Minor SGD docs clarification fixing #137356, #137352 #137528

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Minor SGD docs clarification fixing #137356, #137352 #137528

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@janeyx99
Copy link
Contributor

@janeyx99 janeyx99 commented Oct 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@janeyx99 janeyx99 requested a review from albanD as a code owner October 8, 2024 21:19
@pytorch-bot
Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Oct 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/137528

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

✅ No Failures

As of commit b34370a with merge base 5e3e1c0 (image):
💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

janeyx99 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2024
@janeyx99
Minor SGD docs clarification fixing #137356, #137352
f0a5e72 
ghstack-source-id: 508bcfb
Pull Request resolved: #137528
@janeyx99 janeyx99 added the topic: docs topic category label Oct 8, 2024
albanD
albanD approved these changes Oct 8, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@albanD albanD left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure

@janeyx99
Copy link
Contributor Author

janeyx99 commented Oct 8, 2024

@pytorchbot merge

@pytorch-bot pytorch-bot bot added the ciflow/trunk Trigger trunk jobs on your pull request label Oct 8, 2024
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge started

Your change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours).

Learn more about merging in the wiki.

Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team

Advanced Debugging
Check the merge workflow status
here

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge failed

Reason: 1 mandatory check(s) failed. The first few are:

Dig deeper by viewing the failures on hud

Details for Dev Infra team Raised by workflow job

Failing merge rule: Core Maintainers

@janeyx99
Copy link
Contributor Author

janeyx99 commented Oct 8, 2024

@pytorchbot merge -f "lint + docs passed"

This was linked to issues Oct 8, 2024
dampening and weight_decay parameter should be explained in order #137356
Closed
nesterov parameter of optim.SGD() should be explainid more clearly #137352
Closed
@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge started

Your change will be merged immediately since you used the force (-f) flag, bypassing any CI checks (ETA: 1-5 minutes). Please use -f as last resort and instead consider -i/--ignore-current to continue the merge ignoring current failures. This will allow currently pending tests to finish and report signal before the merge.

Learn more about merging in the wiki.

Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team

Advanced Debugging
Check the merge workflow status
here

@github-actions github-actions bot deleted the gh/janeyx99/188/head branch November 9, 2024 02:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@albanD albanD albanD approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

ciflow/trunk Trigger trunk jobs on your pull request Merged release notes: optim topic: docs topic category

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

dampening and weight_decay parameter should be explained in order nesterov parameter of optim.SGD() should be explainid more clearly

3 participants

@janeyx99 @pytorchmergebot @albanD