1
Had a very interesting discussion the other day on mlflow vs. DVC. They compared the model to subversion vs. git and made a strong case for DVC winning at collaboration.
Back to archive
Thread
5 tweets
2
mlflow (and others) essentially have a central DB of runs, but DVC follows the git model, so you have different areas (file system, local repo, remote repo).
3
Like subversion really got in your way because every commit was global (and you needed to resolve conflicts first), mlflow tends to overflow with local runs, debugging runs, etc., and no easy way to keep it clean. Luckily, no merge conflicts, though :)
4
DVC on the other hand follows the git model, so you can have local runs which you don't commit, commits you only have locally, and so on.
5
I know that both projects have very different feature sets apart from that, but I thought this was a very interesting observation.