generate gemm sampel for 3.4 branch #983
Conversation
|
I think you regenerated the models. Could you use the same data so that we don't have conflicts in the future? |
Thanks for your careful checking. It's done. |
| @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ | |||
| import onnxsim | |||
| import google.protobuf.text_format | |||
| import io | |||
| from typing import Optional | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the master branch there is only one empty line here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. Now I understand, we need to make sure that the bits of PR of the two branches are exactly the same.
Short question, if we encounter the same thing in the future, can we do this via git? rather than manual copying.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Forwarding this question to @alalek
There was a problem hiding this comment.
4.6.0 - 2 empty lines: https://github.com/opencv/opencv_extra/blob/4.6.0/testdata/dnn/onnx/generate_onnx_models.py
In the master branch there is only one empty line here
one line is here for the last few hours only: #982
Git works well in one-way. Two-way merging is a mess in general (some changes are just lost).
Proposed patches propagation is 3.4 -> 4.x -> 5.x: https://github.com/opencv/opencv/wiki/Branches
So this is why we need to put code into 3.4 branch first instead of 4.x if it is applicable and needed.
Manual backporting 4.x -> 3.4 is possible, but it is still manual (through git cherry-pick and resolving conflicts).
| model_def = assertONNXExpected(onnx_model_pb) | ||
| with open(models_files, 'wb') as file: | ||
| file.write(model_def.SerializeToString()) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and two empty lines instead of one here
Related PR