Skip to content

unsloth: drop the pins upstream superseded and repin the conflict-fixed heads - #242

Merged
danielhanchen merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
unsloth/repin-pins-b11417
Oct 5, 2026
Merged

danielhanchen merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
unsloth/repin-pins-b11417

Conversation

@danielhanchen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

The last three nightly runs of unsloth-prebuilt.yml failed at "Resolve tag": since upstream merged its own GLM-5-Next and Qwen4Exp MTP, 7 of the 13 pins no longer merge onto a current base tag. This updates pr-set.json and feature-checks.json so the full set merges again on b11368, b11404 and b11417 (the newest tag).

Dropped

pin why
ggml-org#27754 GLM-5-Next closed; upstream merged ggml-org#27773 instead
#144 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next MTP closed; upstream merged ggml-org#29761 instead
#137 lazy-table readahead upstream merged the same mechanism as ggml-org#29599

What those pins had beyond upstream is not lost:

On #137 specifically: interleaved cold-cache runs on b11368 (Qwen3.8-Flash-Next UD-IQ1_S, lazy table) show upstream's readahead and #137 at the same throughput and the same major-fault count (95 vs 96, against 10,815 with neither), with byte-identical greedy output.

Repinned to conflict-fixed heads

pin old new
ggml-org#24423 DiffusionGemma 3dac51dc8 643189144 (merges b11417)
ggml-org#25731 Inkling 3870aa48b efd2b13f8 (merges b11417, opts Inkling out of mixed token/embd batches added by ggml-org#29622)
#61 IQ1_XS/XXS/XXXS 46cbf0e95 ef45f212c (merges b11368)
#176 projector registry test 09ce1a4d2 e2519ebc0 (merges b11368)

#70, #95, #149, #152, #157 and #158 are unchanged.

feature-checks.json

Testing

  • Local replay of the workflow's merge loop with additive_merge.py: every pin merges on b11368, b11404 and b11417; Add TML Inkling architecture ggml-org/llama.cpp#25731 and kimi-k3 : the MoonViT-3d vision tower and full-size loading fixes #70 need the additive resolver, as before.
  • The b11417 mix builds with CUDA and -DLLAMA_FATAL_WARNINGS=ON. test-llama-archs passes all 374 tests and test-mtmd-impl passes. feature_matrix.py (CPU, as in CI) demonstrates all 7 features.
  • Models on the b11417 mix:
    • GLM-5.3-Flash UD-IQ1_S: text and image, with both the original files and the Shard_Rewrite shard 1 + mmproj.
    • Qwen3.8-Flash-Next UD-IQ1_S with the shared and the self-contained MTP heads (89.5% and 90.1% acceptance).
    • Inkling-Small UD-IQ1_S: greedy output byte-identical to the previous nightly; perplexity 41.85, unchanged.
    • DiffusionGemma Q4_K_M: coherent output.
  • The pin-set lint steps (schema, every pin checked or knowingly unchecked, script self-tests) pass locally.

…ed heads

Drop ggml-org#27754, #144 and #137: upstream merged GLM-5-Next (ggml-org#27773),
Qwen4Exp MTP (ggml-org#29761) and row prefetch (ggml-org#29599), and the old pins no
longer merge. Old-GGUF loading moves to #239, shared MTP heads to #240,
and what the dropped pins had beyond upstream to #241.

Repin ggml-org#24423, ggml-org#25731, #61 and #176 to their
conflict-fixed heads.
@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

You have reached your Codex usage limits for security reviews. Please try again later.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 5, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-05T13:42:33.674187Z 664babe PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@danielhanchen
danielhanchen merged commit 599f679 into master Oct 5, 2026

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 664babefa4

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

"owner": "unslothai#239",
"checks": [
{ "kind": "arch", "arch": "glm5next" },
{ "kind": "arch", "arch": "glm5-next" },

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Preserve the legacy GLM-5-Next architecture probe

When unslothai#239 is needed to keep existing GGUFs whose general.architecture is glm5next loadable, replacing this probe with glm5-next exercises only the new upstream path. A regression in the compatibility path added by #239 could therefore ship while this feature remains green; keep a separate glm5next check alongside the upstream-name check.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

},
"qwen4exp-mtp": {
"owner": "unslothai#144",
"owner": "unslothai#240",

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Exercise the shared Qwen MTP-head path

When #240 is responsible for making the shared MTP sidecars work, assigning it this feature check provides no coverage for that behavior: test-llama-archs -a qwen4exp constructs and decodes one synthetic model, without loading a target plus shared sidecar or creating an MTP speculative context, while the TOPK_QSA probe tests only the isolated operator. A regression in #240's shared-weight loading or borrowing path can therefore leave this feature green; add an integration probe for the shared head or record the pin as unchecked instead.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

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.

1 participant