[pruning]add dropout to list of supported activation functions

[UsingtcNower]

No description provided.

[facebook-github-bot]

Hi @UsingtcNower!

Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community.

Action Required

In order to merge any pull request (code, docs, etc.), we require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have one on file for you.

Process

In order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA.

Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with CLA signed. The tagging process may take up to 1 hour after signing. Please give it that time before contacting us about it.

If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at cla@meta.com. Thanks!

[jcaip]

@UsingtcNower can you please sign the CLA - tyvm for the changes :)

[UsingtcNower]

@UsingtcNower can you please sign the CLA - tyvm for the changes :)

Hi @jcaip thanks very much for your reminder! I signed it now, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused by my negligence. BTW, could you please help to also approve the same torch PR?

[facebook-github-bot]

Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Meta Open Source project. Thanks!

[jcaip]

@UsingtcNower Thanks! For your torch PR, I'm not accepting changes for now for the ao.pruning flow. We are not sure yet if we want to remove the pruning flow and put it in here in ao or core. Once we have a bit more clarity on how we want to organize the code, we'll decide, but I don't want to deal with the ao / core implementations potentially getting out of sync. So I'll close it for now.

Just curious do you feel strongly either way about the Pruner being in torchcao vs pytorch?

[UsingtcNower]

@UsingtcNower Thanks! For your torch PR, I'm not accepting changes for now for the ao.pruning flow. We are not sure yet if we want to remove the pruning flow and put it in here in ao or core. Once we have a bit more clarity on how we want to organize the code, we'll decide, but I don't want to deal with the ao / core implementations potentially getting out of sync. So I'll close it for now.

Just curious do you feel strongly either way about the Pruner being in torchcao vs pytorch?

Hi @jcaip thanks very much for the detailed explanation. I'm not strongly either way about the Pruner being in torchao vs pytorch, and I'm leaning towards a more active development community with a lot of features for NN compression. I'm appreciative for your excellent work!

[jcaip]

ty @UsingtcNower