-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
doc: improve readme #1732
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.
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
doc: improve readme #1732
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the quick response to #1731. Some fixes are needed, ready to approve once they are addressed.
@gajanan-choudhary : I addressed most of the comments (changes pushed), but still work on the few. Will update again today. |
4d6c8e1
to
72cbb0d
Compare
All done from my side. Please, review again. |
@gajanan-choudhary, if you are ok with the last version, can you, please, approve PR? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, and thanks for updating the image as well!
README.md
Outdated
|
||
* SYCL Implementation for XPU Operators: The Operators in this staging branch will finally be upstreamed to PyTorch for Intel GPU. | ||
Torch XPU Operators* implements some of the operators for Intel GPU devices accessible via PyTorch XPU acceleration backend: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
some of the operators
could be rephrased as most operators
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done
True | ||
``` | ||
|
||
# FAQ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From my understanding, the FAQ should reside within the IPEX repository, and there's no need to explicitly link it to IPEX elsewhere.
By the way, I'm not entirely clear on IPEX's current positioning—could you please confirm this with the IPEX owner?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The story around IPEX might be confusing to people, so it's actually important to emphasize it in the readme. In this readme I am trying to write couple notes on IPEX without going too deep into details since such details definitely belong to IPEX documentation. Basically I am just trying to set dots under i in here: this is this and that is that.
Maybe I indeed went too much into details of IPEX. So, I followed advice from @gajanan-choudhary and dropped most details just limiting to which project is using another one. @EikanWang, please, take a look - is that ok with you?
Fixes: intel#1731 Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rogozhkin <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Gajanan Choudhary <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rogozhkin <[email protected]>
Fixes: #1731
CC: @gajanan-choudhary, @EikanWang