Skip to content
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

Upgrade plonky2 #708

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Upgrade plonky2 #708

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

matthiasgoergens
Copy link
Collaborator

Plonky2 has released their 1.0 at last.

Plonky2 has released their 1.0 at last.
Copy link
Collaborator

@hero78119 hero78119 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Notice this got major version upgrade, would suggest to

  • share some highlights for upgraded items
  • benchmark to tell the impact scope

@matthiasgoergens
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@hero78119 Looking at the changelog it doesn't look like too much has changed. (I recognise quite a few of my own contributions.)

It looks like this is not so much an incompatible change like semantic versioning would suggest, but just them saying that the project is stable enough now to deserve a big 1 in front of the version and graduate from the 0.

@hero78119
Copy link
Collaborator

hero78119 commented Dec 9, 2024

@hero78119 Looking at the changelog it doesn't look like too much has changed. (I recognise quite a few of my own contributions.)

It looks like this is not so much an incompatible change like semantic versioning would suggest, but just them saying that the project is stable enough now to deserve a big 1 in front of the version and graduate from the 0.

Thanks for the sharing and attached link of change log. I think for critical library dependency bump, we can develop an SOP to conduct a at least e2e benchmark manually to address the impact of before/after (before we have CI to automate it).
Could you try to make effort on the benchmark of Ceno server?

@matthiasgoergens
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks for the sharing and attached link of change log. I think for critical library dependency bump, we can develop an SOP to conduct a at least e2e benchmark manually to address the impact of before/after (before we have CI to automate it). Could you try to make effort on the benchmark of Ceno server?

I don't have access to the Ceno server. @kunxian-xia could you kick off a benchmark, please?

@icemelon
Copy link
Member

Why didn't we use plonky3? I think the utils and goldilocks we used from plonky2 are supported by plonky3 as well and plonky3 should be more future-proof.

@matthiasgoergens
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I don't know why we didn't originally use plonky3.

I can tell you that I didn't move to plonky3 here: because that's a completely different library, and I just wanted to do a very simple and quick version upgrade.

We can look into using plonky3 in the future, but that would be a more involved effort.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants